Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
blog.wired.com — A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life. It's not as Frankensteinian as it sounds. Instead, a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building simple cell models that have nearly grown into being called life.
SirPopper- 1186 diggs
- digg it
- baillingskater, on 09/08/2008, -7/+19wow thats a crazy breakthrough, nice find
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -13/+4Eh. I'm pretty lukewarm about it. Chances are another scientist down the hall is working on a way to destroy it.
- JesusFreak1984, on 09/08/2008, -29/+2Thats not crazy its ***** stupid! No man should try to play god. If they try they will just in up in HELL.
- iritegood, on 09/08/2008, -0/+13A well-deserved name, I see.
- feliks2, on 09/08/2008, -0/+14lol?
- JesusFreak1984, on 09/08/2008, -15/+0Well there is two more people going to hell.
- JesusFreak1984, on 09/08/2008, -19/+0Every person who diggs this down will go to hell. PLEASE STOP I DONT WANT TO BE BLAMED!
- synystar, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7Troll. Buried and reported.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2That izz too Funnay!
- goffy59, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4block
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7JF: Buried; if you'd be my company in Haven, I don't want to go.
- Savantgarde, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Why the hell is hell in all caps?
Buried, BTW.
- kenrayd, on 09/08/2008, -16/+4Don't worry; never happen, guaranteed, because life comes from the Creator exclusively.
Christians can sing and laugh about these unfortunate scientists. "So close and yet so far...."- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -2/+14"Don't worry; never happen, guaranteed, because life comes from the Creator exclusively."
Please substantiate this assertion. - ApokalypseNow, on 09/08/2008, -2/+11@kenrayd
Objective, empirical evidence for this creator?
As usual, you got nuthin'. - KnightWhoSaysNi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry kenrayd, JesusFreak1984 did it better in the thread above yours.
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -2/+6"Don't worry; never happen, guaranteed"
I'm going to be laughing my ass off at you when they pull it off.
You can't even define life substantively; how could you even think to determine its origin? - StaticThunder, on 09/08/2008, -2/+9Its okay, while kenrayd is singing hosannas, these scientists are actually doing something productive.
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -2/+9I'm curious Kenrayd, how do you explain cloned animals? Did God decide to support scientists and give their experiment a soul just to confuse us?
- kenrayd, on 09/09/2008, -7/+1No one reads me judging anyone. Your consciences will do the job.
In Genesis, it says that man would have dominion over the animal kingdom. He hasn't changed his mind about that, but humans are held accountable in the judgment day for how they handle their dominion. - ApokalypseNow, on 09/09/2008, -0/+8"In Genesis, it says..."
...nothing of any consequence - I mean your fable there involves talking snakes, rib women, dragons, unicorns, satyrs, and all manner of silliness without a single shred of evidence to back it all up. You know what we call that? A bunch of *****. - Fordi, on 09/09/2008, -0/+2"Your consciences will do the job."
My conscious tells me that I'm doing the right thing by arguing for truth, and that you are either knowingly lying, or that it has to pass off to my intellect to determine that you're stupid.
- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -2/+14"Don't worry; never happen, guaranteed, because life comes from the Creator exclusively."
- dbug, on 09/08/2008, -0/+8Wait until a superior intelligent species evolves from it and makes us their slaves. Not so nice anymore?
- biogears, on 09/08/2008, -16/+5Let me get this straight, an intelligent designer, took components and ideas from an existing living system and rearranged them, and this is evidence that complex biological systems came to be by random interactions without a designer.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 09/08/2008, -2/+15Reading comprehension should be emphasized more in schools.
- SundayBrunch, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3living tissue over metal endoskeleton here I come!
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+10"Let me get this straight, an intelligent designer, took components and ideas from an existing living system and rearranged them..."
Very good, you're able to read. Wait, what's the rest here?
"...and this is evidence that complex biological systems came to be by random interactions without a designer."
No. It's a report on the progress of scientists working to understand the underlying mechanisms of life.
Now go to the back of the class. - fluxion, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4you've lodged your fingers so far in your ears you don't even attempt to listen anymore
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3@fluxion:
You're replying to whom?
- tomz165, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1Like so many similar announcements they go on to so qualify the actual results that the whole has the guts ripped out of it.
The only problem is they started from a living cell to go to a living cell. "...that can almost be called life..." And then they qualify the entire process as resulting in something "that's almost life" - what is almost living is dead...it's a lot like being a little pregnant. There is no halfway house.
The "fatty molecules" that they begin with are already multi-cellular living things so where in all this have they begun with nonlliving matter??
Note that the article says "The replication isn't wholly autonomous, so it's not quite artificial life yet, but it is as close as anyone has ever come to turning chemicals into biological organisms..."
I look forward to hearing more on this but without the exaggerate claims that then have the rug pulled out from under them in the detailed descriptions.
- kevinsflowers, on 09/08/2008, -8/+41Awesome. Science is fun.
- j4kk, on 09/08/2008, -21/+10The key phrase here is, "on the verge."
- elnerdo, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4You're correct, of course.
I'll file it under "Flying Car" "Supercapacitor batteries" and "Nanobot warfare" for now. - disappointed, on 09/09/2008, -0/+3Peer review or it didn't happen.
- elnerdo, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4You're correct, of course.
- DiggChairman, on 09/08/2008, -15/+8Scary.
- loopis, on 09/08/2008, -1/+18Scary Awesome you mean!
- smotpoker, on 09/08/2008, -5/+6It is cool but I have to admit it is kinda scary as well. There already known cases of hybridization/crossbreeding/gene manipulation going awry, no telling what this kinda thing might eventually lead to. Probably the most probable (and obvious) disaster would be some ***** up germ warfare superflu/12 monkeys type *****
- GothAlice, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Uh, no? The "most probable" outcome is we have a novel toy for children to play with that has absolutely no practical use whatsoever. Like sea monkeys, except artificial, and thus better. Better living through science!
- smotpoker, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1I said most probable *disaster* as in if it were to somehow go bad, what would be the most likely way?
Granted these particular experiments at this particular ivy league school are not very likely to go too badly but when people start repeating them you never know. Who knows what could happen if some high school kid decides it would make a good science fair project and does something dumb or the government decides it is a good starting point for biowarefare research.
Remember, many scientists test heredity/genetics using fruit flies because of their short life spans/fast reproduction. Microscopic life forms reproduce and evolve even faster. Without proper containment, proper procedures and/or with human interventions it's hard to determine what could be produced or whether it could threaten human life/health - Savantgarde, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1I'm willing to guess they created these protocells in a hermetically sealed container. If these guys were to ever escape, they'd have to fend off against highly complex bacteria with billions of years of evolution on their side...definitely a losing battle.
Of course, we could probably pimp the protocells full of potent genes to even their odds, so yeah, there's still a chance we're making a monster.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -45/+17Since it didn't "evolve" we can call it yet *another* form of Intelligent Design since a creator is responsible for it.
- zip000, on 09/08/2008, -7/+43I wouldn't say "another form of."
Rather the first and so far only form of.- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -41/+5Seeing as though it is genuinely "another" form of Intelligent Design... I'll keep my original verbiage.
- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -6/+31"Seeing as though it is genuinely "another" form of Intelligent Design."
Please identify other organisms that were "intelligently designed". - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -34/+3Please identify any organisms that were not "intelligently designed".
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -4/+25Kelly do you have proof that there was another form of Intelligent Design? I'd like to see it if you do because so far nobody has been able to provide any credible evidence to support that hypothesis. Keep in mind I'm talking about actual physical proof, not the idea that because a banana fits in my hand it was made by God.
Until you can provide evidence to support your claim you can't just choose to use your original verbiage if you're going to attempt to participate in a scientific debate. You don't get to pick and choose what you want to believe if you're going to take a scientific approach. The evidence determines that for you. - Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -2/+25"Please identify any organisms that were not "intelligently designed"."
I am aware of no organism that is known to be "intelligently designed". You have asserted that such organisms are extant, thus it is your responsibility to identify such an organism. - scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -2/+20"Please identify any organisms that were not "intelligently designed".
Every single living thing on this earth was not intelligently designed (backed up with mountains of evidence). This includes you. - rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -3/+19"Please identify any organisms that were not "intelligently designed"."
Kelly. - CATSCEO2, on 09/08/2008, -3/+18@kelly
Everything on Earth other than what these scientists are doing. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -19/+1scubaman5000,
"Kelly do you have proof that there was another form of Intelligent Design?"
I have evidence for this yes. Please contact me for an ongoing dialog. I'll be happy to share it with you in greater detail. kelly at themwagency.com
"because so far nobody has been able to provide any credible evidence to support that hypothesis."
Perhaps nobody has presented it to you (yet) though don't mistake that as it not being presented.
"Keep in mind I'm talking about actual physical proof, not the idea that because a banana fits in my hand it was made by God."
Fear not. That's not my evidence.
Until you can provide evidence to support your claim you can't just choose to use your original verbiage if you're going to attempt to participate in a scientific debate.
I'll present it that way even if you opt to not take me up on my offer to have an ongoing via email as indeed there IS evidence.
"You don't get to pick and choose what you want to believe if you're going to take a scientific approach."
Agreed. That's why I believe in creationism.
"The evidence determines that for you."
Agreed. - iritegood, on 09/08/2008, -2/+23This conversation is stupid. The point is: evolution has been observed. Intelligent Design has not. ID isn't even a mother-***** hypothesis.
www.notjustatheory.com
Educate yourself. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -22/+2@Dimensio
"I am aware of no organism that is known to be 'intelligently designed'."
You're actually aware of all of them. I believe that you have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
"You have asserted that such organisms are extant, thus it is your responsibility to identify such an organism."
I have done no such thing. I asserted that all organisms both living and extinct were created. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -21/+2@scubaman5000,
Every single living thing on this earth was intelligently designed (backed up with mountains of evidence). This includes you. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -20/+2CATSCEO2,
"Everything on Earth other than what these scientists are doing."
It's important to read their verbiage. They say, "have nearly grown into being called life."
I rest my case. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -18/+2@iritegood,
"This conversation is stupid. The point is: evolution has been observed."
*Micro* evolution has been observed. This does not disagree with creationism science. If anything it reinforces the account. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.
"Intelligent Design has not."
Because it was only done once. It's not a recurring process. - Hortnon, on 09/08/2008, -0/+14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution#Macro ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution#Criti ... - Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -1/+13"You're actually aware of all of them. I believe that you have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise."
Then you should be able to provide evidence in support of your belief. Please do so.
"I have done no such thing. I asserted that all organisms both living and extinct were created."
You have stated a contradiction. You first claimed that you have not "asserted that [intelligently designed] organisms are extant", then you claimed that "all organisms both living and extinct were created". If you claim the latter, then you did assert as I suggested.
Please demonstrate that all organisms were "created". Describe the "creation event" in terms of known occurring physical processes. - Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -1/+12"*Micro* evolution has been observed. This does not disagree with creationism science. If anything it reinforces the account."
Please define "creationism science" and explain how "microevolution" constitutes substantiation of the "account".
" Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science."
Speciation has been observed, as have extensive evidence in the fossil record of more lengthly transitions. Additionally, the means by which you have employed the term "theory" suggests that you are unaware of its meaning in a scientific context; a theory is a complex framework of understanding attempting to explain observed phenomenon. "Macroevolution", as you have stated it, would be an event. A "theory", such as the theory of evolution, would attempt to explain that event. - KaiserArny, on 09/08/2008, -2/+6RTFA
This article is about experiments showing that life could have appeared without any outside help.
It's not really about creating life, but explaining how it could have happened. Getting closer and closer to proving that life could have appeared on Earth without the help of any intelligent designers, or aliens, or any gods - KennMac, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3I just popped some popcorn for this thread. This is getting good.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -11/+2@Dimensio
"Then you should be able to provide evidence in support of your belief. Please do so."
Please contact the email address provided. I would like to have a long-ongoing dialog with you about it.
"You have stated a contradiction. You first claimed that you have not "asserted that [intelligently designed] organisms are extant", then you claimed that "all organisms both living and extinct were created". If you claim the latter, then you did assert as I suggested."
No, you assumed that I was implying that such organism must be extinct. Yet I said nothing of the sort.
"Please demonstrate that all organisms were "created"."
This will require a long ongoing dialog that I will be happy to discuss with you via email or a dedicated thread somewhere else.
"Describe the "creation event" in terms of known occurring physical processes."
You're asking me to describe the event in terms of known physical processes when it would have only occurred one time and be unlike any other event in history or to ever happen? Why don't you also ask me how many angles can fit on the head of a pin or which would give... an immovable object or the immovable force that is destined to collide with it. - SonicEarth, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3Actually, you could possibly consider cross-bred plants and genetically engineered organisms to be "intelligently designed". Although they are not 100% intelligently designed.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -10/+1@Dimensio
"Please define "creationism science"
The scientific study of creationism
"and explain how "microevolution" constitutes substantiation of the "account".
The Bible eludes to (in a round about way) a parent species being the beginning of derivatives of the same kind.
"Speciation has been observed"
Gimme an example then please.
"as have extensive evidence in the fossil record of more lengthly transitions.
Most of those "transitions" or not transitions at all. It's a hotly debated topic even amongst evolutionary geologists. - covertbadger, on 09/08/2008, -1/+12"Please contact the email address provided."
Why are you so keen to discuss this behind closed doors? Make your points in public, squirmer, so they can be analysed and considered by all. Your repeated attempts to move the conversation out of public scrutiny says a great deal about your confidence in your position. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -10/+2@KaiserArny
"This article is about experiments showing that life could have appeared without any outside help."
By creating a very controlled environment and physically putting two elements together... much like a creator would.
"It's not really about creating life, but explaining how it could have happened."
Hence the response I gave... "another form of creationism"
"Getting closer and closer to proving that life could have appeared on Earth without the help of any intelligent designers, or aliens, or any gods"
Sounds to me like you're implying that the scientists who orchestrated the yet-to-be-determined life to be lacking any intelligence should their classification of life actually does occur. - SonicEarth, on 09/08/2008, -2/+12The Bible is a work of fiction and has no scientific basis.
- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -0/+13"Please contact the email address provided. I would like to have a long-ongoing dialog with you about it."
Are you unable to reference that information it this forum?
"No, you assumed that I was implying that such organism must be extinct. Yet I said nothing of the sort."
I did not. I stated that you were asserting the existence of an extant, not extinct, organism that is the result of an intelligent designer. I will also note that my statement would not preclude you also suggesting that there existed now-extinct organisms that were also the result of an "intelligent designer"; I only noted that you were asserting the existence of at least one currently existing organism that qualified under such criteria.
"This will require a long ongoing dialog that I will be happy to discuss with you via email or a dedicated thread somewhere else."
Then send information to dimensio at gmail.com.
"You're asking me to describe the event in terms of known physical processes when it would have only occurred one time and be unlike any other event in history or to ever happen?"
Yes; if a "creation event" can be inferred, then the event must be definable as being the result of known physical processes. This is required, because if an event is entirely undefined then it is not possible to logically derive predictions regarding the aftereffects of the event that should be observed in order to make an inference.
"Why don't you also ask me how many angles can fit on the head of a pin or which would give... an immovable object or the immovable force that is destined to collide with it."
I do not believe that such inquiries are relevant to the current discussion. - Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -1/+11"The scientific study of creationism"
Please explain the science of "creationism". Is this an major area of scientific study, such as biology or physics, or is this a sub-field under a major area. If it is the latter, then what is the major field under which it falls? What models have been constructed within this study, and what useful predictions have been derived from this model?
"The Bible eludes to (in a round about way) a parent species being the beginning of derivatives of the same kind."
Please explain how and why a claim within the Bible relates to a scientific study.
"Gimme an example then please."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"Most of those "transitions" or not transitions at all. It's a hotly debated topic even amongst evolutionary geologists."
Then you should be able to falsify all examples referenced at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ... -- please do so. - KnightWhoSaysNi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+10@kelly
Extant != Extinct - Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+12Wow, Kel. Really got that 'I know you are but what am I' thing down, don't you?
ID is not a theory. It is not even a valid hypothesis. It predicts nothing. It fails all its own empirical requirements.
Essentially, it's a dead idea as far as science is concerned, and HAS BEEN since before it fell into the public light.
You want to do a search and replace to fill in 'evolution', for 'ID', fine. Just know this: You'd be knowingly lying, and in your worldview, you've damned yourself.
Honesty starts in the head. Try it for once. - rationalist, on 09/09/2008, -0/+11kelly, the sad thing is that you are only making rudimentary use of this wonderful tool of the Internet, which gives you access to vast resources.
If you had done a little Googling, you would have found out that every single one of the arguments you so sincerely put forth here as been rebutted repeatedly and decisively on talkorigins.org
I suggest you save yourself and everyone else a lot of time and avoid mucking about in well-trod ground by spending an afternoon and reading up at that site.
Honestly, those of us who have been fighting the nonsense wars for probably longer than you have been alive have seen it all. It is not that we don't like you, it's just we're tired of repeating the same thing over and over each time a new zealous creationist comes on Digg.
It is simple courtesy to check and see if your assertions have been made before, and what the responses have been, so we don't have to take up our time repeating old answers. Asking people to give you their email address, so you can bombard them with creationist propaganda, is not helpful.
From the "macroevolution" BS (there is no such thing, it is a phony division invented by creationists; evolution occurs along a continuum, and the distinction between "species" is simply a convenient artifice human scientists invented to help classify organisms. Just as boundaries between countries are not actually marked on the Earth with thick lines of paint, species differentiation is more fluid than you seem to think)
to the misnomer "scientific creationism" (the scientific method consists of developing falsifiable hypotheses, comparing them against experimental or found evidence, applying consistent logic to explain findings, and, most of all, letting the evidence lead where it may, with conclusions following facts. Creationism is a religious doctrine that begins with dogma and then seeks conforming facts, discarding contrary evidence - and even manufacturing false evidence where convenient. It posits a non-falsifiable claim and is in every way most unscientific)
every part of your argument reveals you to be a sincerely misinformed parroter of received dogma, rather than an independent, open-minded and inquisitive critical thinker.
Nothing you say here is either new or interesting, it is all very old hat (some of your arguments have been made and debunked for well over 50 years - my father took part in some major rebuttals).
Please, go to http://talkorigins.org/ and don't come back until you have some new arguments. - rationalist, on 09/09/2008, -0/+10P.S.
Kelly, I suggest that if you are going to use WordPress to promote your "Advertising and Creative Agency", and put that long list of impressive-sounding clients, you first make sure that your "About" page doesn't read:
"This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress."
As a fellow professional, let me confide in you that that does not inspire confidence; I don't think I would hire even a junior sub-contractor who has had a WP blog since November 2007 yet has never even edited the default Page. http://www.themwagency.com/News/?page_id=2
You should also read up a bit on SEO, you are using the default permalink structure which does not help Google - or your clients - find your *****. Hell, you haven't even modified the "Meta" section at the bottom of the default sidebar. I'm sure you charge clients an arm and a leg for "Web Development" and "Interactive Marketing", though, among the other high-falutin' services you advertise, thus giving the real professionals a bad name.
Come to think of it, I guess you apply the same reason and logic to your business that you apply to your creationism.
Just a helpful tip - read up a bit on WordPress, on Search Engine Optimization, and on how to get a ***** clue on the internet, ok?
- trafficlight, on 09/08/2008, -3/+9I would guess that if it's truly alive, it will evolve.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -26/+3And if it doesn't, then creationists can offer a well-deserved, "told you so"
- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -1/+17"And if it doesn't, then creationists can offer a well-deserved, "told you so""
On what logical basis would a such a followup assertion be made? - sponeil, on 09/08/2008, -3/+15Who needs logic? Religion transcends that. ;-)
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -16/+1Because they say organisms evolve.
(Yes, I know that's not how they say it's supposed to work. I'm poking fun.) - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -12/+1sponeil,
hah, I see what you did there. - Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -1/+15"Because they say organisms evolve."
This is true only if the organism reproduces in an environment that favours variation upon the original rather than the original itself. - kelly, on 09/08/2008, -12/+1@Dimensio
again...
(Yes, I know that's not how they say it's supposed to work. I'm poking fun.)
- GassyTurd, on 09/08/2008, -6/+26If it is that easy to "play God," your God is not very powerful.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -16/+3Ya, cuz the two are the same...
- Itsmechuck, on 09/08/2008, -6/+2w00t.
- jgzman, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2You call that easy?
- Narcism, on 09/08/2008, -10/+5Time to bury the god boy!
- enantiodromia, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1oh, you
- zip000, on 09/08/2008, -7/+43I wouldn't say "another form of."
- sockpuppets, on 09/08/2008, -15/+8Sounds like Spore.
- apackofmonkeys, on 09/08/2008, -1/+17Except it doesn't rob you if you try to install it a 4th time.
- sockpuppets, on 09/08/2008, -1/+5It probably just kills and eats you.
- apackofmonkeys, on 09/08/2008, -1/+17Except it doesn't rob you if you try to install it a 4th time.
- suckanucka, on 09/08/2008, -17/+64In other news, fanatical christians are on the verge of creating a new form of biology.
- austang, on 09/08/2008, -14/+5Okay, now lets see them create the chemicals/molecules/atoms. Can they just manifest them from nothing?
This is why this article has nothing to do with religion.
They are re-creating what has already been done before using materials that are already there. It's much like heating up left-overs in the microwave then claiming that you made dinner.- Phyraxus, on 09/09/2008, -1/+2Tell me...
What will you be saying if/when we do create matter?
"Pish posh; no great big deal?" - skeez86, on 09/09/2008, -1/+4We create atoms, in fact pretty much everything after element 93 was created by us.
And we can create the chemicals and molecules. Having worked in an organic total synthesis laboratory for several years, I can say that with confidence.
What you are claiming is that creating a living creature from chemicals isn't an accomplishment if we don't make all the components ourself.
It's not like leftovers at all. It'd be similar to making a cake.
We have figured out how to make the cake from the box but you say it's not a cake unless we go out and grow wheat to make flour and raise chickens to get eggs to make the cake.
A cake is a freaking cake, eat it and be happy you could do it... THEN work from more fundamental levels.
- Phyraxus, on 09/09/2008, -1/+2Tell me...
- newsboys, on 09/08/2008, -8/+3So what you're saying is that it takes intelligent design to create living cells from non-living materials. Great - now we're on the same page.
- carpespasm, on 09/09/2008, -0/+2Not at all. This is just making the case that it can be done this way. That doesn't lend evidence to the hypothesis that this is what happened 4.5 billion years ago, or that it is the only way that it can happen.
As correlated to by the below joke:
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are traveling through Ireland by train. They pass a meadow with a herd of sheep. The engineer, making conversation, points out the window, saying "Look, there are black sheep in Ireland!". The physicist replies, "No, we should say that there is at least one black sheep in Ireland". The mathematician ponders a second, then adds, "You're both wrong. In Ireland, there is at least one sheep, of which at least half is black."
- carpespasm, on 09/09/2008, -0/+2Not at all. This is just making the case that it can be done this way. That doesn't lend evidence to the hypothesis that this is what happened 4.5 billion years ago, or that it is the only way that it can happen.
- austang, on 09/08/2008, -14/+5Okay, now lets see them create the chemicals/molecules/atoms. Can they just manifest them from nothing?
- thelif, on 09/08/2008, -0/+26Biologists on the Verge of Creating Circumstances for Latest Sci-Fi Horror Film/Game
- dkitch, on 09/08/2008, -0/+12Please, just let the lighting be better than Doom 3
- socalftw, on 09/08/2008, -23/+49Where's your god now?
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -43/+11Very much in control thank you.
- twiztidsinz, on 09/08/2008, -6/+29Wouldnt this mean that Man is just as powerful as god?
- GassyTurd, on 09/08/2008, -4/+27Holy *****, creationists are stupid.
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -2/+26Keep rationalizing Kelly...make the facts fit your beliefs so you can sleep at night.
- kayala, on 09/08/2008, -1/+15Very much in control, huh? He's been in control of, say, hurricanes, earthquakes, poverty, hunger, death, disease? Your God is a joke.
- Hetman, on 09/08/2008, -7/+20If he is in control, would that not mean we have no free will? And with out free will what would be the point of his punishment or praise?
- ICSU, on 09/08/2008, -0/+14Logical question to theists? blasphemy!
- nepidae, on 09/08/2008, -1/+0Punishment / praise is used to train neural nets, and I don't think they have free will /shrug.
- pinchduck, on 09/09/2008, -2/+1Which religion? In the Christian tradition, judgment is rendered at the end of your life to decide if you get into heaven. If you're not, you don't. The role of free will is so that you have a choice.
- shawn1122, on 09/08/2008, -7/+32Why is this a religious issue to you? Let them believe what they want, just appreciate the breakthrough, don't use it to spread hatred..
- kenrayd, on 09/08/2008, -11/+1It hasn't broken through anything yet except produce a micro-sized dead smiley face - see pic.
- chili555, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8"closing in on..." is not creating life. It's imagining that someday you might possibly create life...maybe. Just like I am closing in on being cool, handsome and a multi-millionaire. Just give me a little more time...
- solid12345, on 09/08/2008, -12/+4If there is no God why do you insist on the need to keep discovering more about the universe, you're just going to become worm food and die anyway.
- ph070sh0p, on 09/08/2008, -1/+21Because it makes life worth living.
- kayala, on 09/08/2008, -1/+17Why not use our time here for something good? You're trying, dishonestly, to equate atheism with nihilism. It won't work.
- Beefsupreme88, on 09/08/2008, -0/+9If there is a god why are you spending time on earth when you could be up there with him? Might as well find a sharp object to puncture your jugular with then you can party with him up in heaven for all eternity.
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -1/+14Actually solid12345, as someone who once believed in God very strongly but no longer does I can tell you that I am much happier now and content with my existence than I ever was when I was religious.
Discovery allows us to see why the world and life itself is beautiful and how we can keep it beautiful for generations to come. - StaticThunder, on 09/08/2008, -1/+5@Beefsupreme88
I admire your logic, but that would be a mortal sin. Better to volunteer for extremely hazardous duty than purposely off yourself. - bluedemocrat, on 09/08/2008, -6/+2Why, why, why is religion involved in this debate? this will not prove or disprove anything either way.
Seriosuly, as a moderate christian who keeps his faith to himself, i have this to say
crazy christians - shut up and stop thinking science is blasphemy
crazy athiests - stop trying to convert everyone to your beliefs. If you go around saying "there is no god" you are doing one of two things, trying to convert people (and now you are like the religious right) or you are just trying to be mean, either way, you dont look good
they make make life in a lab, yay, i couldn't care less, i'd rather them make faster computers, but whatever.
seriously people, no more talking about god, one way or the other, if you believe, good for you, if you dont, good for you. lets just leave it at that.
lets rise above the ***** debate between religion and science and not go down that road.
lets GROW UP - Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6@solid:
"If there is no God why do you insist on the need to keep discovering more about the universe"
What? Do you think there's something better to do with our time?
@Static:
"Better to volunteer for extremely hazardous duty than purposely off yourself."
We're talking about intellectual cowards here. What makes you think they'll subject themselves to the potential for physical harm?
- biogears, on 09/08/2008, -16/+1I assume this scientist is INTELLIGENT, and has DESIGNED this life form, no?
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+9Indeed. And that would make it the first designed life form.
- Albumen, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3He's there smiling and saying to himself, "Cool! They're figuring this stuff out, I wonder what they'll do with it?"
- StaticThunder, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5http://www.gepr.net/smite.jpg
- Beefsupreme88, on 09/08/2008, -0/+230ft tall albino apes that glow in the dark.
- StaticThunder, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5http://www.gepr.net/smite.jpg
- pinchduck, on 09/09/2008, -1/+2Everywhere, why? I'm not sure how the issue of really cool science relates to the geospatial location of my deity. What's the link? Seriously. I'm sure that some people might get freaked out, but some people get freaked out by every little thing. So lay it out for me. Some guy conducts a cool experiment, Diggers react by posting about religion. I don't get it.
- KingGorilla, on 09/09/2008, -0/+2In a lab coat. Stand back. He's about to do science
- Instmo, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0Read carefully. These "Scientists" are still using created matter to create the life in which case they really aren't creating life at all. They're copying the combination of matter to create life which in this case has already been done before by the Creator.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -43/+11Very much in control thank you.
- SQLserver, on 09/08/2008, -4/+39It was only a matter of time. "Biology" is just the study of very complex chemicals interacting.
In short, humanity, and all life on Earth are nothing more then chemical interactions (CO2 + H2So4, just a hell of a lot more complicated). So, really there wasn't much stopping us from creating life.
Me, I can't wait until Spore Creature Creator comes out for Reality.(complete with a cage for the animal)- Scynet, on 09/08/2008, -0/+16And interacting chemicals are really just interacting atoms. It all falls down to physics.
Obligatory: http://www.xkcd.com/435/- GothAlice, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1With any sufficiently advanced sub-atomic physical simulator, you can create life at a macro scale. :P
I'd call an atomic physical simulator the 'right way' to go about simulating life. None of this high-level logic code. Program the basic laws and let 'er rip.
- GothAlice, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1With any sufficiently advanced sub-atomic physical simulator, you can create life at a macro scale. :P
- ajimmykid, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3Spore penis monsters in real life?
- biogears, on 09/08/2008, -11/+2Biological life is not just 'chemical interactions', any more than a motorcycle is an interaction of rubber and steel. And both required a purposeful designer.
- shortyjacobs, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4yeah, we got your point the first time....
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+7A motorcycle is an artifact of physical process. Similar to the way a crystal is an artifact of physical process.
I know you'll assert that a motorcycle has a designer; you can go out and meet the dude if you have the right connections.
But does a crystal?
Life, by the by, is essentially a complex organic crystal; each unit catalyzes the production of further units. - SQLserver, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4Can you please put forth any evidence that some biological system requires an Intelligent Designer?
And, by the way, what college did you major in Biology or Evolutionary biology from?
- jgzman, on 09/08/2008, -0/+10A motorcycle is an interaction of rubber, steel, aluminum, petroleum byproducts, plastic, and with any luck a hot woman.
- Onyxblaze, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1The entire universe is essentially one big formula that is being "solved", and reality, as we know it, is just a representation of this formula.
- aloser, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2Quantum theory disagrees. Nondeterminism ftw!
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3Folding @ Universe
- pdurod, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1There's more to Humanity than just chemical reactions. Conscience, self awareness and reasoning for starters. What the hell does carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid (CO2 + H2SO4 =>) give?
- NanoStuff, on 09/09/2008, -0/+2The creature is very cheap, it's the cage where they get you.
- Lewie, on 09/09/2008, -0/+3@pdurod
Then why can psychological disorders be attributed to chemical imbalances? Chemicals cause emotions and stimulate the senses. Isn't it just a small step to say all our thoughts can be determined by chemical interactions? It is more likely than totally undoing the last thousand years of science to account for a "creator" which has no empirical evidence.
- Scynet, on 09/08/2008, -0/+16And interacting chemicals are really just interacting atoms. It all falls down to physics.
- HarryBauzonia, on 09/08/2008, -24/+4Once accomplished, I wonder if they'll ever be able to convince abortion advocates that it's actually alive.
- xenuxenuts, on 09/08/2008, -2/+12it wouldn't be human.
- kspanks04, on 09/08/2008, -4/+0it wouldn't?
- rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -1/+17I know of no "abortion advocates", per se. Those of us who believe the option should be legal are not "fans" of the procedure; there aren't any folks going around selling tickets.
Rather, we are advocates of a woman's right to control her own womb.
(never mind the basic stupidity of your comment; unless you refrain from killing all singe-celled organisms - including pathogens and your own skin cells - you are just as much of an "abortion advocate" as anyone else. As has been pointed out, even if alive, this organism would hardly be even potentially human.)- carpeclunes, on 09/09/2008, -2/+1Speak for yourself, I love abortion!
- xenuxenuts, on 09/08/2008, -2/+12it wouldn't be human.
- Cheeseburgers, on 09/08/2008, -2/+65now, THAT'S what i call intelligent design
- LucasVB, on 09/08/2008, -1/+34I propose that once we create autonomous life from scratch, we should hijack that term just to piss the creationists some more.
- fluxion, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6splendid idea. we can also call practitioners of this type of science "Creationists".
man that would piss them off
- fluxion, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6splendid idea. we can also call practitioners of this type of science "Creationists".
- feliks2, on 09/08/2008, -1/+21Finally some intelligent design I can get behind.
- austang, on 09/08/2008, -4/+2Yeah it's pretty smart...
But what if you didn't have any legos, how would you build your lego people then? Can't just manifest your lego pieces from nothingness.- SeanBowe16, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6*We* are Gods now.
- ComradeGoby, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3Not yet.... Soon.
- elementop, on 09/09/2008, -2/+1Make your own dirt ;)
- Phyraxus, on 09/09/2008, -0/+3You're still using dirt?
LOL
What a ***** noob; L2P.
- LucasVB, on 09/08/2008, -1/+34I propose that once we create autonomous life from scratch, we should hijack that term just to piss the creationists some more.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -36/+6Yes, when they succeed (assuming they do), they will have proven once and for all that creating life *requires* intelligence. Unless, of course, they're willing to admit that it was an accident.
- UNCCEJ1010, on 09/08/2008, -3/+27Logic...?
Nope, none here.- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -21/+1Good argument. I hope you're a garbage man.
- kayala, on 09/08/2008, -2/+12He was merely noting, CrazedLeper, the total vacuousness of your argument. That is, that your argument was totally meaningless.
- carpeclunes, on 09/09/2008, -0/+5CrazedLeper, I wouldn't even trust you with my garbage.
- Isileth, on 09/08/2008, -3/+21Not at all, the reason we require scientists to actually get involved in the process is because we don't have the time to stare down a microscope hoping the process just happens to take place under it.
It does however prove that the process can happen out of a completely natural process that builds more complex parts.
But for us to be able to watch and examine each step we must get involved ourselves to make it happen at a time and place convenient for our viewing pleasure.- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -14/+2@Isileth said
"we don't have the time to stare down a microscope hoping the process just happens to take place under i"
Well that's a handy excuse. If you're so sure life could *just happen* then, why waste what little time Neverlution gave you exploring life at all?
-------------------------------
"It does however prove that the process can happen out of a completely natural process that builds more complex parts."
It proves no such thing since a laboratory and a scientists are *exactly* what Neverlution says *cannot* be involved in the process.
---------------------
"But for us to be able to watch and examine each step we must get involved ourselves to make it happen at a time and place convenient for our viewing pleasure."
Another convenience. Has quantum physics taught you nothing? When you observe the experiment, you change it. You cannot, therefore, *observe* the "completely natural process" to which you refer. - Isileth, on 09/08/2008, -0/+15Why bother finding out how the world around us works? To advance our scientific knowledge perhaps?
As for using scientists you completely missed the point.
Take a basic experiment of mixing 2 different chemicals, we could sit around with a bunch of lab equipment just hoping the 2 happen to find their way into a beaker together or we can go ahead and put them in together because we actually want to see the damn experiment happen.
The same goes for evolution just on a slightly more complex scale.
As in the previous experiment we know all the starting components exist. We could sit around and hope they happen to mix right in front of us, or we can go and stick them all together ourself.
The fact we have put them together doesn't change the fact they all exist naturally and therefore by pure chance alone will combine at some point. The only thing the scientists have done is made sure all the required parts are in a place they can examine the process. Its still something we know can and does occur naturally anyway.
Again just like an experiment with 2 chemicals, the fact we put them together in a beaker produces the same effect as if they combined without our interference its just a hell of a lot easier for us to take accurate data from. - weeFred, on 09/08/2008, -0/+8CrazedLeper: I'd say it's just as convenient as you having no proof for god, it also seems quite convenient that you only find out there's no god when dead.
- Dimensio, on 09/09/2008, -0/+7"It proves no such thing since a laboratory and a scientists are *exactly* what Neverlution says *cannot* be involved in the process."
What, exactly, is "neverloution" and how does it relate to the current topic of discussion.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -14/+2@Isileth said
- youannoyme, on 09/08/2008, -2/+22... hardly. Just because life *can* be created by intelligence doesn't mean it *has* to be. You need to work on your logic skills slightly.
Besides. Experiments like these are just trying to get the lay of the land and see what is possible under certain conditions. The idea is to see how life can form on its own in certain environments, including environments believed to be similar to our own original one.- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -9/+2@ youannoyme said:
"... hardly. Just because life *can* be created by intelligence doesn't mean it *has* to be"
In just what way does the creating of "life" in a lab, using intelligence, prove your point? - nitsuj, on 09/08/2008, -0/+9"In just what way does the creating of "life" in a lab, using intelligence, prove your point?"
For you it would mean that a god is not needed to create life. Considering that this god of your appears to be completely absent, it bolsters the case that given the right conditions life emerges.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -9/+2@ youannoyme said:
- smotpoker, on 09/08/2008, -2/+18Nope, however your comment has proven once and for all that communicating over the internet *doesn't* require intelligence.
- PabloMac, on 09/08/2008, -5/+2Great example.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -9/+2Ridicule is not evidence but since so much of what you call "science" is conjecture, I suppose it'll have to do.
- smotpoker, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6Everything is evidence. Evaluation of conjecture via testing gives it relevance and is by definition the very foundation of all science. Get over it or go teach you metaphysical pseudoscience elsewhere.
Putting elements/conditions together in no way shape or form proves they cannot come together naturally. You might as well watch someone dig a hole, announce it proves holes cannot form without intelligent entities digging them. In such a situation, ridicule is very strong evidence that you are a moron.
- xenuxenuts, on 09/08/2008, -1/+16no they won't. Think about what you said for a bit and see if you can see the flaw in your logic.
- MattNF, on 09/08/2008, -1/+12You're asking him to use his brain? Don't get your hopes up.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -12/+1No flaw found.
- 4DFX, on 09/09/2008, -1/+1Someone paste the *facepalm* ASCII here please.
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -2/+15Where do you get that idea? They are only speeding up a process that is Billions of years old and they are demonstrating that given enough time these molecular compounds could come together and form a living cell. It's like helping a mouse find the cheese in a maze the size of a City block. Eventually he would have found it given enough time but we're not going to be alive long enough to see the end result.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -11/+2Sorry, the "process" to which you refer requires that they *not* speed it up. ANY interference or intervention in ANY WAY instantly precludes the argument of "spontaneous generation". Nice try.
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -0/+11So you don't think my example of the mouse and the cheese made any sense? I know it's tough to think about how things might work on a timescale of billions of years, especially when you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
It kind of sucks that you're so blinded by your beliefs that you won't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. I think if you were to try looking at all of this that you would find there's a great deal of truth supporting it. - CrazedLeper, on 09/08/2008, -10/+1"So you don't think my example of the mouse and the cheese made any sense?"
I don't think it applies since there can be no "mouse" at the beginning of the discussion. Even the maze requires an explanation.
--------------------
"when you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old"
The Bible did not say that and I did not say that. You are being presumptuous.
------------------------------
'you're so blinded by your beliefs that you won't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong."
In what way are you not describing yourself? I have done my homework which included hearing *both* sides of the argument. The *other* side of the argument about intelligent design, incidentally, is NOT religion. Look for a documentary called "the Privileged Planet" (like you're gonna) and you'll see that there are many SCIENTIFIC evidences both *against* spontaneous generation of life *and* in favor of an intelligent First Cause. Of course, you won't be doing this because that's not what the crowd is doing this week. - covertbadger, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8"Look for a documentary called "the Privileged Planet" (like you're gonna) and you'll see that there are many SCIENTIFIC evidences both *against* spontaneous generation of life *and* in favor of an intelligent First Cause."
LOL! The Privileged Planet is one of the most scientifically-vacant, thoroughly-debunked pieces of idiot propaganda since Hovind's banana. Pretty much every single thing that that feeble-minded drivel puts forward as scientific 'evidence' can be directly refuted with counterexamples that the authors were too dozy to consider. Composition of the atmosphere? Effect of higher gravity? Temperature? Outer planets providing protection from meteors? None of the claims made are even faintly true. - scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -1/+10@crazedleper: I'll be honest, Creationist videos give me a headache. It's worse than reading creationist comments but in the spirit of being open minded I'll see if I can locate and watch the documentary you mentioned, also if it appears that the evidence presented is legit I'll even support your cause here on Digg. :)
- nitsuj, on 09/08/2008, -1/+10"I have done my homework which included hearing *both* sides of the argument."
You might be 'hearing' but you're certainly not understanding the theory of evolution (or science in general) as is born out by countless posts from you where you completely getting it wrong.
- Chassit, on 09/08/2008, -0/+7How does this prove anything? Here's a hint...it doesn't.
- wunksta, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8"requires" intelligence to create life from scratch in a lab. not divine intelligence though.
doesnt mean that life cant develop on its own though - Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -1/+13"Yes, when they succeed (assuming they do), they will have proven once and for all that creating life *requires* intelligence"
Please explain your assertion. How would such a single data point demonstrate that intelligence is in some way required for any event that results in the emergence of new life? - mr.gates, on 09/08/2008, -0/+13I made a snowflake in laboratory conditions once and for all proving it requires intelligence to create snowflakes! My logic is flawless.
- StaticThunder, on 09/08/2008, -0/+9Sufficient for is not the same as required for, as others have pointed out.
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+11No. The experiment proves that natural (that is, non-supernatural) processes can create life. Your 'requirement' for intelligence doesn't logically follow.
- carpeclunes, on 09/09/2008, -0/+8CrazedLeper, not one thing you have said in this thread so far as made any logical sense. I'm not even trying to be mean. I'm not speaking from any kind of scientific stand point; I am being serious. Your arguments are filled with holes the size of Canada. You are such a caricature of someone that does not know anything about evolution that I half believe you are a troll. I really wish you were a troll, because it pains me that a fellow human could be so incredibly mindless. It is a physical pain.
You said: "Yes, when they succeed (assuming they do), they will have proven once and for all that creating life *requires* intelligence. Unless, of course, they're willing to admit that it was an accident."
I think Mr. Gates above answered best: "I made a snowflake in laboratory conditions once and for all proving it requires intelligence to create snowflakes! My logic is flawless."
Does what Mr. Gates said make any sense? I want you to think about this for at least three hours and post back with a simple yes or no. Godspeed.
- UNCCEJ1010, on 09/08/2008, -3/+27Logic...?
- kingfoot, on 09/08/2008, -8/+2this is really cool. but i wonder how much international backlash there would be regarding religion and god.
- jgzman, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6You haven't been reading this page, have you?
- pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -8/+26the pro-life/anti-science crowd must feel conflicted.
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -17/+11Pro lifers aren't anti science.
That's just left-wing propaganda.- GassyTurd, on 09/08/2008, -6/+28Pro lifers are anti-science. If you believe that a cluster of cells has a soul, you are an idiot.
- Hetman, on 09/08/2008, -5/+19Pro lifers always confused me. Because once you are born they seem fine with executing you and torturing you if you do not follow their rules. I really do not think you can be pro-life and pro capital punishment. It just does not seem very logical.
- Chassit, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8If propaganda means what I see with my own two eyes on a daily basis...
- pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -1/+14pro lifers think this is a person with constitutional rights:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg - solid12345, on 09/08/2008, -4/+5A cluster of cells isn't life yet people are burdened so much by it they have to suck it out?
- pintomp3, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2why don't i plant some of my sperm inside you. will you decide to keep it in there?
- aloser, on 09/08/2008, -5/+3You, too, are "just" a cluster of cells..
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6You know, I'd believe that if so many pro-lifers didn't lash out against scientific theory every chance they get.
Or maybe you're part of the left-wing conspiracy. Tell me, sir. Are you a Poe?
- TBombadil, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0rofl
- kelly, on 09/08/2008, -17/+11Pro lifers aren't anti science.
- chrisduser, on 09/08/2008, -8/+22Sounds like a thousands of religious groups preparing to condemn these biologists for playing god.
- apackofmonkeys, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8To be honest, it bolsters their argument. Doesn't prove anything, but they can certainly use it easier than their opponents.
- kenrayd, on 09/08/2008, -7/+1Sounds like you have a hunch it will never work even in a million years of trying. I agree with your hunch.
- muhadeeb, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1If I were the Devil's advocate, I would say, How dare these radical fluffs use my name in vain
- apackofmonkeys, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8To be honest, it bolsters their argument. Doesn't prove anything, but they can certainly use it easier than their opponents.
- piper999, on 09/08/2008, -3/+25Reports of the decline of American Science seem to have been exaggerated.
- ajimmykid, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4are you serious??
Just because you hear one report by research from Harvard Medical School, you think that we're still not slowly losing our footing in the science world? might you also think that because you haven't heard reports from other countries... good point, because Digg never ever only presents news from one aspect.
- ajimmykid, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4are you serious??
- paulieslim, on 09/08/2008, -6/+3Amy Winehouse has been on the verge for a couple years now
- ginestony, on 09/08/2008, -2/+12this is just a publicity stunt for Spore.
/sarcasm- dumline, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5Instead of viral would it be biological marketing?
....sorry, it's Monday- NecroDigg, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1i actually lol'd
- dumline, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5Instead of viral would it be biological marketing?
- flumpth, on 09/08/2008, -2/+35What's the bet the new form of life will be a penis monster?
- dkitch, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1We talking an actual 6' penis, or just some bad Sesame Street slash fiction?
- displacednomad, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Will it look like this:
http://digg.com/pc_games/Spore_Penis_Monster ?
- a1cd, on 09/08/2008, -3/+17I create new lifeforms everyday..
OGC - bicyclethief, on 09/08/2008, -3/+7Life begins at concepts.
- Memitim, on 09/08/2008, -7/+12I hope that they eventually build a tree, just to disown that stupid phrase, "Only God can build a tree." I hate when absolutes are spoken as truths. Plus a new tree would be pretty cool.
- CrankyHippo, on 09/08/2008, -12/+28Tell me, why do you think people believe in God? Because they want to. It's not easy living in such an ugly and corrupt world. There is no certainty and nothing to hope for. People are lost, so they reach out. Don't you get it? God didn't create humans. No, it's humans who created God
- PabloMac, on 09/08/2008, -4/+10Pics or it didn't happen.
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8http://bibledude.net/img/bible.jpg
- scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -2/+14Religion is a self defense mechanism designed to shield man from the uncertainty of life that came as our intelligence evolved to a point where we could ask the questions who am I? why am I here? where am I going when I die?
Not knowing the answers to these questions is very stressful so it's understandable that early man had to come up with whatever answers he could, right or wrong. Modern Christianity is just another step in the path of the evolution of Religion. Hopefully in the not too distant future we'll finally be able to drop Religion all together now that we are finally getting closer to understanding the truth about the universe and our place in it.- billbugger, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6Science is the new Religion.
And hopefully within your context, i won't be buried for being misinterpreted. - scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6I don't know if I'd call it Religion. Religion makes a conclusion then tries to make the evidence fit that conclusion. Science looks at the evidence and tries to draw conclusions from it. Two very different approaches.
- suckanucka, on 09/08/2008, -2/+2My place in the universe is to create new lifeforms that will kill off other lifeforms infected with the religion virus.
- billbugger, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6Science is the new Religion.
- jhaks, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1Had to google that to remember where that was from.
- otakushark, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1If all you see in this world is ugliness, corruption, uncertainty and despair, you might want to get some counseling.
- skeez86, on 09/09/2008, -1/+01. It's a quote.
2. He didn't say that's all he sees.
3. If you do not agree that the world is ugly and corrupt, you need to open your eyes. - otakushark, on 09/10/2008, -0/+11. Sorry for not having memorized Cowboy Bebop.
2. He didn't say that he saw anything else.
3. If you think I said there is no ugliness or corruption in the world, you need to open your eyes and re-read my comment.
- skeez86, on 09/09/2008, -1/+01. It's a quote.
- muhadeeb, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1That has been my mantra- thumbs up
- PabloMac, on 09/08/2008, -4/+10Pics or it didn't happen.
- stealthc, on 09/08/2008, -2/+13So if they're careful enough and clever enough, they might organize a string of molecules someone could classify as alive. That is proof that it can happen by natural devices, but should I accept it as proof that the same thing can happen by accident?
- rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -4/+12No. Nor has anyone claimed that it would be proof of evolution.
It would, however, be proof that creation of life does not require supernatural powers.- xander, on 09/08/2008, -5/+2But it would be proof that it requires inteligence.
- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -0/+7"But it would be proof that it requires inteligence."
You are incorrect. It would demonstrate nothing regarding a necessity or lack thereof of intelligence. - stealthc, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1I'm going to side with Dimensio. It would, however, only serve as evidence that life *can* be created by design. The experiment has no way to address natural biogenesis. (natural meaning: without a designer pushing things along)
- jhaks, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2We already know creation of life doesn't require super natural powers; it happens everyday. I think you mean life can be created without another life form and instead just from the component materials.
The way the first life form existed and came to be is impossible to prove because there is very little evidence. We can however hypothesize and show that life can begin from non-life. This type of research as they mention is also an opportunity to see how this protocell evolves.- brewer, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1That is true, there is a 99.9999999999999% chance that we will never, ever, know how the original life form(s) developed. What we can do is gather as much evidence as possible (in space, on Earth, and in the lab) and turn it into a game of numbers: "It's not likely it came from X, it's more likely it came from Y, but there's a chance it came from Z, too, etc."
- Instmo, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0Your correction. There's proof but it isn't generated by Scientists, it is generated from the genesis account of God making life.
- rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -4/+12No. Nor has anyone claimed that it would be proof of evolution.
- grizzlybrice, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4Hooray zombies!
- dkitch, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1Braaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnsssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- twigboy, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1better get myself a copy of that how to prepare for a zombie invasion book
- ncapone, on 09/08/2008, -1/+11Didn't Mary Shelley teach us anything?
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Not really.
- OMRebel, on 09/08/2008, -17/+10For those ready to pounce and proclaim there's no God, etc.., you might want to read the article. A scientist is basically grabbing organic material and trying to manipulate it. This isn't abiogenisis at all.
From the article:
"Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe."- rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -2/+221) You are confused about the definition of "organic material".
It doesn't mean alive, it means that its molecules contain carbon.
Read a chemistry textbook - one not written for home-schooling by "Bibles-R-Us.
2) You are confused about the definition of "abiogenisis". It is the study of how life emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. I suggest you follow your advice and actually "read the article". The scientist is not "grabbing organic material and trying to manipulate it", he is placing molecules in certain favorable conditions and letting the chemical and physical reactions take their course.
See #1 above.
3) This experiment has no direct bearing on either cosmology or evolution. If successful, this artificial creation of life would prove only one thing: that to create life does not require supernatural powers.
I leave it to the reader to determine whether that strengthens or weakens the primary argument for the existence of God.- xander, on 09/08/2008, -12/+2//If successful, this artificial creation of life would prove only one thing: that to create life does not require supernatural powers.
It would prove another one: that the creation of life requires intelligence. - scubaman5000, on 09/08/2008, -1/+9Xander I think that conclusion is a bit of a stretch. Observing molecules do what they do naturally does not imply that a creative hand had to be involved. What they are doing in the lab is merely speeding up a process that normally would take billions of years. Since we're running on a shorter time scale than that we need to help things along.
To help you understand consider it being like taking waiting around for a mouse to find a piece of cheese in a maze the size of Los Angeles. Eventually, given enough time, he would find it but we don't have time to wait around for that to happen so we put the mouse closer to the cheese. We don't give him the cheese, he still has to find it we just make the conditions ideal for that to happen. Given enough time the results of this experiment would and could happen naturally without a hand to guide it. - kenrayd, on 09/08/2008, -12/+2Don't hold your breath. The failure (guaranteed) will help confirm that only the Creator makes anything live.
- Dimensio, on 09/08/2008, -2/+11"It would prove another one: that the creation of life requires intelligence."
Repetition of your previous assertion does not alter the fact that it is incorrect. - ApokalypseNow, on 09/08/2008, -2/+11"...failure (guaranteed)..."
Your superstitions are not themselves evidence for the success or failure of a biology project. - weeFred, on 09/08/2008, -3/+12Does that mean if it succeeds you will stop believing in imaginary men in the sky kenrayd?
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -2/+12@kenryad:
You got something against trying? You have some special knowledge that no one else knows about?
Then keep your superstitious nonsense OUT of a conversation about science. The adults are talking. - kenrayd, on 09/09/2008, -8/+1Archeology is a science that speaks loud enough and it has been disseminating the so called of Bible errors for over 200 years; in addition, hundreds of Biblical predictions have come true with a 100% accuracy so that the only conclusion is that this book was handed down by someone who is all knowing.
That's why I know it is a foregone conclusion; man will never in eternity generate life.
And now you know you're responsible for every word you write in opposition to the Bible, but cheer up, you can be forgiven. - ApokalypseNow, on 09/09/2008, -0/+9"Archeology..."
As stated here:
http://digg.com/space/Apocalypse_Soon_How_Is_the_U ...
archeology does not support your position.
"...Biblical predictions..."
Again, as stated in the link above, your prophecy is lacking.
As such, your conclusion is based on false premises, so it is anything but forgone. - weeFred, on 09/09/2008, -0/+9lmao 100% of the time eh, pull that number out of your ass? When does it predict the end of ignorance and the belief of magic men in the sky?
- Dimensio, on 09/09/2008, -0/+11"Archeology is a science that speaks loud enough and it has been disseminating the so called of Bible errors for over 200 years; in addition, hundreds of Biblical predictions have come true with a 100% accuracy so that the only conclusion is that this book was handed down by someone who is all knowing."
Then you should be able to substantiate this assertion. Please do so. - Fordi, on 09/09/2008, -0/+3"hundreds of Biblical predictions have come true with a 100% accuracy"
A list, with verified sources, and a clear timeline for each fulfillment event, and independent, verified corroboration of the event, that disallows later writers and individuals from having read earlier prophecy would be evidence.
Things happening later in a book that are stated earlier in the book isn't evidence of a damned thing.
"And now you know you're responsible for every word you write in opposition to the Bible"
A book written by the perfect has flaws? Can't be. Well, maybe his omnipotence can't get around a human proxy.
No, it's *****, man. The Bible was written by rabbis and priests, likely in an attempt to solve social ills of the time, or for political reasons at other times. They're just men. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can stop being a dick to others about it. - Fordi, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1Come on; you're supposed to preach the gospel, convince the masses! What's the matter? Haven't you the evidence to back up your claims?
- xander, on 09/08/2008, -12/+2//If successful, this artificial creation of life would prove only one thing: that to create life does not require supernatural powers.
- rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -2/+221) You are confused about the definition of "organic material".
- SilverBlade2k, on 09/08/2008, -0/+13New, from the Umbrella Corporation, Regenerate!.
Some side effects may occur..- hangingchad, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Just hope that this doesn't spawn any ***** movies.
- blaker00, on 09/08/2008, -7/+2and the matrix has come true.
- InfinitySnatch, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4wrong movie, bro
- Hinducow28, on 09/08/2008, -0/+18Somewhere there is a scientist getting his crowbar ready...
- keonnerod, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7And then he remembered he was just playing Spore.
- DeFex, on 09/08/2008, -0/+11What could possibly go wro
- billbugger, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4Abort it, now!
- pitdog, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3let us hope they create a compassionate, decent politician
- jgzman, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6OK, I'll accept test-tube life, nano-bots, solar-power cars, hydrogen cells, and unlimited energy from water in gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics, but you, sir, are being ridiculous.
- Galume, on 09/08/2008, -10/+4If you think pro-lifers are anit-science you obvioulsy have your head up your ass (which BTW, is scientifically impossible...so- NICE JOB!)
- jstone, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6Did you not notice the reply button?
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -2/+5Query: How can something that is impossible also be obvious?
Answer: Talk to a creationist about the origins of life. He'll tell you.
- Sardonic2U, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2Levi Johnston already did....
- cubicledrone, on 09/08/2008, -9/+5They're having a lot of trouble re-inventing something that according to them, happens all by itself, aren't they?
Logic is a bitch with some ass-chomping teeth, ain't it?- jgzman, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8Ever try to build a mountain?
Or hell, grow a garden?- Lith25, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4YES...***** impossible to keep my tomatoes from being destroyed by bugs!
- Fordi, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8Aww, look. The creationist thinks he made a point! Isn't that cute?
- cubicledrone, on 09/08/2008, -6/+0I'm not a creationist, jackass. I accept evolution as fact. The Earth is 4 billion years old. Furthermore, I know more about science than you do, I know there is not only life on other planets but life on Mars as well, and I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
And in any debate on the supernatural, I'll win by six touchdowns. Any questions? - Fordi, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1"I know more about science than you do"
Huh. What's your discipline?
"I know there is not only life on other planets but life on Mars as well"
If you're talking microbial, I'll give you that you perhaps work for NASA and have picked something up from the Rover that hasn't been published yet. If you're talking macroscopic, I'm thinking you've read "Stranger in a Strange Land" or "Total Recall" one too many times.
"I'm not a creationist, jackass."
Given, "They're having a lot of trouble re-inventing something that according to them, happens all by itself, aren't they?" I doubt you can validly fault me for having sensed and acted on the immediate implication.
But yeah, I'm curious as to your explanation, if you disagree with "them".
- cubicledrone, on 09/08/2008, -6/+0I'm not a creationist, jackass. I accept evolution as fact. The Earth is 4 billion years old. Furthermore, I know more about science than you do, I know there is not only life on other planets but life on Mars as well, and I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
- TBombadil, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0give us 4 billion years dumb ass.
- jgzman, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8Ever try to build a mountain?
- rationalist, on 09/08/2008, -2/+24Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, it has to do with the subsequent changes that occur to existing life as a result of natural selection.
Thus the panicky creationists commenting here are, as usual, off the mark.
However, if successful, what this experiment would prove is that the creation of life does not require supernatural powers.That would undermine one of the chief "arguments" for the existence of a god or gods.
As Laplace apocryphally said, of his accounting for the movement of the planets, when Napoleon asked "what about God": "I have no need for that hypothesis".- kenrayd, on 09/08/2008, -14/+1never happen - guaranteed - with no sweat included.
- ApokalypseNow, on 09/08/2008, -0/+13As usual, you are basing your opinion on your ignorance instead of evidence.
- Mnementh2230, on 09/09/2008, -0/+8I wonder - if they DO manage to do it, what will happen to kenrayd? Will he rationalize it by saying that the creator stepped in and made it happen? Or will he have a crisis of faith?
- gordonj, on 09/09/2008, -0/+9"I wonder - if they DO manage to do it, what will happen to kenrayd? Will he rationalize it by saying that the creator stepped in and made it happen? Or will he have a crisis of faith?"
I think denial of the facts will suffice - why change tactics at that point? - cutchyacokov, on 09/09/2008, -0/+9kenrayd did tell me recently that if scientists find any extra-terrestrial life (even microbial life on Mars) he will eat his bible. I, for one, want to try to hold him to it.
Will it be plain or with dressing, kenray? What sort of condiments would be good on a bible? That's a tough one. I suggest you pick something fairly soon. - kenrayd, on 09/10/2008, -9/+1I'll keep my word and Creator of Scripture will keep His - He created life and no one else has or ever will, additionally, He made Mars sterile.
If a man-made life succeeds, then Buddhism is correct teaching that "life is an illusion" and I would be a Buddhist. But since we all know that life is real by every human sensory, so much for that scenario and religion. - ApokalypseNow, on 09/10/2008, -0/+9"I'll keep my word and Creator of Scripture will keep His..."
False premise - assuming unevidenced mythology to be true.
"If a man-made life succeeds, then Buddhism is correct teaching that 'life is an illusion'..."
Non-sequitur - the conclusion that that life is illusory would not follow from the premise that man made life is successful. - kenrayd, on 09/10/2008, -8/+1Let's see then if my assumptions are correct. Anyone produce life yet? - yawn.
- ApokalypseNow, on 09/10/2008, -0/+8Life took roughly 3.5-4.2 billion years to form on this planet, and we're still learning about genetics, though we know more and more every day.
Give it time - science does not conjure up solutions with a spoken magic word, nor does it produce them at your pleasure. Research, testing, examination, etc. are all processes which require time and careful consideration. Given your unfamiliarity with the whole of the process, I can see how you might have been confused. - kenrayd, on 09/11/2008, -6/+1Scientists can't even keep a living cell alive beyond its natural life-span, that much I know. So a fair conclusion is that if a scientist really believes in the potential for man-made life, then regardless of whatever academia they have, they still have no common sense.
- ApokalypseNow, on 09/11/2008, -0/+7Non-sequitur - the conclusion that scientists cannot create life does not follow from the premise (right or wrong) that scientists could not keep a cell alive beyond a certain period.
Further, you are again committing the "poisoning-the-well" fallacy of bringing up "common sense". - kenrayd, on 09/12/2008, -6/+1Still true none-the-less.
- ApokalypseNow, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7Actually, no. Scientists can freeze bacteria and keep the frozen individuals viable for decades or more - their metabolisms have been slowed to almost imperceptible levels. There have been bacteria frozen in the antarctic that were thawed out and viable after 8 million years!
However, again I point out that the ability of science to keep a cell alive for a certain period has no bearing on the ability of science to create life - your earlier non-sequitur has no more logical grounding now than previously. Your assertion to the contrary has no accompanying substantiation, and can be as easily dismissed as the initial claim. - kenrayd, on 09/12/2008, -6/+1Like I said, no scientist can keep a cell alive longer than its natural lifespan.
Obviously those bacteria have a very long natural life spans depending on the natural conditions.
Therefore, who's talking non-sequitur? You are. - ApokalypseNow, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6"Like I said, no scientist can keep a cell alive longer than its natural lifespan."
As I have already stated, the bacteria have had their metabolisms slowed such that they survive much longer than they normally would - thus, they can keep a cell alive longer than its natural life span, showing your assertion to be incorrect.
"Obviously those bacteria have a very long natural life spans depending on the natural conditions."
You fail at biology - as organisms that reproduce asexually, the lifespan of a single bacterium is determined by the beginnings of a new generation (disregarding problems in mitosis that would cause apoptosis), as each "parent" cell divides into two "daughter" cells. By preventing them from reproducing (by slowing down their metabolism through cryopreservation) they are able to extend the life of an individual bacterium practically indefinitely, whereas normally asexual reproduction would simply be a matter of consuming the proper nutrients and undergoing mitosis.
"Therefore, who's talking non-sequitur? You are."
You still do not understand what a non-sequitur is. I have explained it before - a conclusion that does not follow logically from a given premise (true or false, it doesn't matter). You attempted to point out a perceived error in my statements regarding unicellular cryopreservation. Whether or not my statement was correct (it was, mind you), my conclusion that scientists can indeed extend the life of a single cell followed logically from the premise that scientists have frozen cells to keep them alive longer. Therefore, I committed no non-sequitur fallacies.
Your earlier conclusion regarding science's capacity to create life does not follow logically from your (incorrect) statement that science could not extend the life of a single cell. You have not given that premise any further logical grounding. Your initial non-sequitur stands.
So are now going to bitch about how arguing with people who know both epistemology and what the ***** they're talking about is hard again, as you did when I pointed out your lack of knowledge of oceanic microbiology? Have you decided what "type" Foraminiferans belong to yet? Have you been able to clearly define, in strict terms, what a "type" is yet? - kenrayd, on 09/12/2008, -6/+1As applies to your reasoning, you are most definitely non sequitur by the definition you just supplied, ‘doesn't logically follow’ and that is what I meant. The thought in question was that scientists cannot maintain the life of a cell beyond its natural life span. All you did was use a diversionary explanation of the meaning of bacteria “life-span” (that was your non sequitur) by turning to an explanation of bacteria reproduction.
But “life-span” is not regarded as equated with reproduction but “until death” so with bacteria, that would be apoptosis which you disregarded! And if scientists by purely man-made means cannot preserve life, that is prevent it from dying, then what kind of common sense would allow one to think they can generate it! - ApokalypseNow, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6"All you did was use a diversionary explanation of the meaning of bacteria “life-span” (that was your non sequitur)"
An explanation is not a conclusion - you still don't understand formal logic. It is the conclusion that must not follow from the premise.
"But 'life-span' is not regarded as equated with reproduction but 'until death' so with bacteria, that would be apoptosis which you disregarded!"
Apoptosis with bacteria only happens in cases where mitosis fails to complete successfully, or when the cell is physically damaged - cell death in bacteria is not pre-programmed. You still fail at biology.
Life-span for bacteria is indeed equated with reproduction, as the parent cell becomes two daughter cells through the process of mitosis. Material from the parent exists in both daughters, but the parent itself no longer exists in its pre-mitosis form.
"And if scientists by purely man-made means cannot preserve life, that is prevent it from dying, then what kind of common sense would allow one to think they can generate it!"
You are invoking both of your favorite fallacies here again, the non-sequitur (it does not follow that scientists ability to create life follows from their capacity for maintaining the life of an extant cell) and the "poisoning-the-well" fallacy of invoking common sense. Why do you insist on attempting to build an argument on flawed grounding? - kenrayd, on 09/14/2008, -7/+1In this application, maybe you need an explanation of common sense. It appears you and your colleagues have a serious deficit of understanding this important principle. I have not seen any of you acknowledge the value of common sense at all.
On one hand you have an existing living cell with all necessary components of life installed and working. On the other hand there is an idea of constructing a living cell from scratch using the natural living cell as a model.
It does not matter if the life span means dividing or dying. In the case of your bacteria, the scientist would only need to prevent it from mitosis and then maintain it through some applied methods to keep it living. The point is to develop techniques to thwart a cell's dying process.
The common sense logic is: Which would be easier? Keep a cell from dividing and dying through some verified methods OR...
...coaxing an object into life AFTER having assembled the parts in just the right way and AFTER synthesizing the vital parts to begin with.
It does indeed follow that with such an ambition, that the scientist would first at least want to master the task of keeping a living cell alive thwarting its natural processes of death before attempting to generate a living cell from scratch! NASA would not attempt a trip to Alpha Centauri before first attempting the moon.
I’m sure that if this question were made into a poll taken among the scientific community that virtually all would agree with my conclusion especially if they were not made aware that this is a creation/evolution controversy.
You pretend to have a valid counter-argument using denial gymnastics around the simple conclusion above because you’re biased against the common sense reasoning that cells were designed and created and life is a supernatural accomplishment! You have no business in science until you realize the need of enlightened common sense through prayer.
Atheism, which you profess is a subjective system of beliefs. Tell me what objective empirical peer reviewed publication disproves the supernatural. You would answer that no natural evidence indicates it which is fine. No one expects natural evidence to be comparable to supernatural evidence anyway, but what proves that atheism is scientific? Since nothing does, then explain how you can justify being an atheist from science since that is what you seem to depend on for all your answers? - ApokalypseNow, on 09/14/2008, -1/+5"I have not seen any of you acknowledge the value of common sense at all."
Again, the invocation of the use of "common sense" is a "poisoning-the-well" fallacy. Further, science has necessarily stricter standards for drawing conclusions, as what would seem to be "common sense" is often wrong.
"The point is to develop techniques to thwart a cell's dying process..."
Which, as I explained, has been done - not that that has any bearing on your continued arguing of a non-sequitur.
"Which would be easier?"
Apples-to-oranges comparison. One requires knowledge of chemical replicators and the formation of phospholipid membranes, and the other requires (in the case I've listed) knowledge of cellular cryobiology and chemical cryoprotectants, as well as materials knowledge in vitrification. Two separate fields of study. Comparisons of perceived effort have no value here.
"It does indeed follow..."
As I just showed you, no, it doesn't. The two fields are only marginally related - for the most part, they have very little to do with one another.
"NASA would not attempt a trip to Alpha Centauri before first attempting the moon."
False comparison - the ability to travel distances in space are all based on propulsion technology, whereas the ability to create and the ability to maintain life are based on largely different areas of cellular microbiology. One necessarily needs to traverse one distance in order to reach a further one, but one need not necessarily prevent cellular death in order to create new cellular life.
"I’m sure that if this question were made into a poll..."
For starters, with your admitted and willful ignorance of science, what makes you think you are qualified in any way to speak to how the scientific community would react? Secondly, even among scientists, popular opinion has no bearing on reality.
"You pretend to have a valid counter-argument using denial gymnastics..."
Your inability to comprehend the arguments as presented, and your subsequent dismissal of them for that reason, is not my failing - it is yours.
"...common sense..."
There's that fallacy again...
"...cells were designed and created and life is a supernatural accomplishment!"
Unevidenced assertion - we have no evidence that points to the supernatural as a reason for the existence of life. Further, we do have evidence and proof-of-concept for every aspect of the processes involved in the creation of life, from the formation of increasingly complex organic molecules on a young earth to the glacial and tidal generation of lipid membranes, to endosymbiosis as a means of producing cells with more functionality - all completely naturalistic explanations that do not require the interference of magic and mythology.
"You have no business in science until you realize the need of enlightened common sense through prayer."
With your own admitted willful ignorance of science, what makes you think you are in any way qualified to speak to the requirements of the scientific community? Further, science is based on objective, empirical evidence, and there exists no such evidence for the supernatural - thus, it has no place in science. Before you question the validity of a search based on empirical rationalism, do make sure that your own assumptions are testable in pri
- kenrayd, on 09/08/2008, -14/+1never happen - guaranteed - with no sweat included.
