The origin of life

[FlyCatcher]

If you read the article I posted a link to, they are not much further along than genetic knockout experiments where the following occurs:

The organism is still alive - write that down.

The organism died - write that down.

Did you read the article? You know how viruses reproduce? They attach themselves to a cell, inject their RNA., and the cell begins producing copies of the virus.

Animate? Define animate.

God bless,
Ed

Well, didn’t you tell us we were guessing if we didn’t read the original material? Are you guessing?

 

[rossum]

From scratch? They rebuilt some DNA. There was no scratch.

“We needed to improve methods for extracting intact chromosomes from yeast.”

Read the full article.To establish conditions and procedures for transplanting the synthetic genome out of yeast, we developed methods for cloning entire bacterial chromosomes as centromeric plasmids in yeast (emphasis added)

They took strands of artificially manufactured DNA each about 1000 base pairs long. They then assembled these pieces into longer segments of about 10,000 bp. They then used a yeast to join the 10.000 bp segments into 100,000 bp chunks and further into the whole 1.08 Mbp genome. The process is summarised in the picture with the red circle near the end of the full paper.

The yeast was used in the final assembly process. The whole artificially made genome was extracted from the yeast after using the yeast to help assemble the pieces. The final result was based on a bacterial genome, not a yeast genome.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I’d love to read the original material. Do you have a link?

Was the genome they transferred animate? Guess it’s getting closer and closer…

While Elizabeth Pennisi, author of link, “Synthetic Genome Bring New Life to Bacterium” may be very creditable, it is important to read the actual research paper, especially the materials and methods sections. Some actual research papers will offer possibilities and note various assumptions. In other words, the fine print is valuable.

Blessings,
The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

Read the full article.
To establish conditions and procedures for transplanting the synthetic genome out of yeast, we developed methods for cloning entire bacterial chromosomes as centromeric plasmids in yeast (emphasis added)
They took strands of artificially manufactured DNA each about 1000 base pairs long. They then assembled these pieces into longer segments of about 10,000 bp. They then used a yeast to join the 10.000 bp segments into 100,000 bp chunks and further into the whole 1.08 Mbp genome. The process is summarised in the picture with the red circle near the end of the full paper.

The yeast was used in the final assembly process. The whole artificially made genome was extracted from the yeast after using the yeast to help assemble the pieces. The final result was based on a bacterial genome, not a yeast genome.

rossum

I just posted a request for the actual research paper. Please, what is the link for the above? Thank you. If you used a link for the abstract, please provide the full citation so that I can track it down. However, you did advise “Read the full article”.

Thank you sincerely.
granny

 

[tonyrey]

I question whether a single cell, which has neither a brain nor any nervous tissue, can have a “purpose”. Pretty much everything is automatic.

You obviously haven’t followed up my reference. A mechanistic account of life is hopelessly inadequate because it attempts to derive that which is purposeful from that which is purposeless. A single cell is goal-seeking - regardless of brain or nervous tissue…

If simple survival is a ‘purpose’ then the Spiegelman Monster has the same purpose and that is just a chemical.

Survival is never simple! Spiegelman did not begin with a living cell…

 

[rvilbig]

So, why can’t scientists produce life from inanimate chemicals in the lab today?

God bless,
Ed

It seems they’re getting pretty close. Venter’s team is well on their way to making a synthetic cell. But I’m not sure why you think this is problematic for the faith. God commanded the earth to do this very work, to “bring forth all kinds of living creatures,” (Gen 1:24), and He never revoked the command: “Long have I known from your decrees that you have established them forever” (Psalm 119:152). Venter’s team is simply helping the living matter of the earth obey God’s perpetual command, just like my parents and teachers helped me to learn the ten commandments.

The significant question for Catholics is whether science can create souls. The Venerable Pope Pius XII taught that evolution could be accepted “in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (paragraph 36). And I’m yet to encounter a scientist who has put forth a credible theory of consciousness, let alone claimed to have created a soul capable of rationally choosing. If you’re interested in the conundrum of consciousness as understood by modern science, familiarize yourself with the Chinese Brain argument or read Roger Penrose’s book Shadows of the Mind.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Creation of life in the scientific laboratory will demonstrate one thing only:* that life was created by intelligent design.*

 

[rossum]

Creation of life in the scientific laboratory will demonstrate one thing only:* that life was created by intelligent design.*

If it was done then it would demonstrate that:* life can be created by intelligent design.

• the intelligence involved does not have to have divine powers.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

If it was done then it would demonstrate that:* life can be created by intelligent design.

• the intelligence involved does not have to have divine powers.

rossum

The fact remains that intelligent Design is an incomparably superior explanation to the purported “creation” of purposeful life by purposeless processes - which implies that intelligence itself is fortuitously derived from processes which lack intelligence. A metaphysical conjuring trick of the highest degree of absurdity…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

the intelligence involved does not have to have divine powers.

Made in the image and likeness of God, man has divine powers. He is part angel and part ape. His better self is the angel. When he lowers himself entirely to the ape, he is just another ape.

 

[edwest2]

It seems they’re getting pretty close. Venter’s team is well on their way to making a synthetic cell. But I’m not sure why you think this is problematic for the faith. God commanded the earth to do this very work, to “bring forth all kinds of living creatures,” (Gen 1:24), and He never revoked the command: “Long have I known from your decrees that you have established them forever” (Psalm 119:152). Venter’s team is simply helping the living matter of the earth obey God’s perpetual command, just like my parents and teachers helped me to learn the ten commandments.

The significant question for Catholics is whether science can create souls. The Venerable Pope Pius XII taught that evolution could be accepted “in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (paragraph 36). And I’m yet to encounter a scientist who has put forth a credible theory of consciousness, let alone claimed to have created a soul capable of rationally choosing. If you’re interested in the conundrum of consciousness as understood by modern science, familiarize yourself with the Chinese Brain argument or read Roger Penrose’s book Shadows of the Mind.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

“problematic for the faith”? I never said that. What I did say, and what I’ve said in the past, is this: If we “know” how to do it, why aren’t we?

The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure. They were not able to prove anything. And one more thing I’ve noticed, which is completely false and cannot be demonstrated, is scientists on TV saying the following:

“If we find a planet that is the right distance from its Sun and has water, then we will likely find the ‘building blocks of life.’”

There is zero – let me repeat – Zero Evidence of This. They have nothing. At the present time, they have no way to demonstrate that idea is true. At best, this is a faith statement.

The origin of life is still unknown, which also does not mean they shouldn’t look into it. However, what Venter’s team did does not approach the definition of synthetic life but the media – print and electronic – needs eyeballs, so they call it synthetic life when it’s not.

Finally, one thing I’ve noticed that one small group is desperate about is to find a way to shoehorn materialistic naturalism into the Catholic faith. In some cases, in a way that actually gives no consideration for what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

rossum

the intelligence involved does not have to have divine powers.

Made in the image and likeness of God, man has divine powers. He is part angel and part ape. His better self is the angel. When he lowers himself entirely to the ape, he is just another ape.

May I rephrase the description of the human being?
Human nature is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. The human species is distinct in kind from all animal species. The human person is the pinnacle
of God’s creation.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[rvilbig]

“problematic for the faith”? I never said that. What I did say, and what I’ve said in the past, is this: If we “know” how to do it, why aren’t we?

The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure. They were not able to prove anything. And one more thing I’ve noticed, which is completely false and cannot be demonstrated, is scientists on TV saying the following:

“If we find a planet that is the right distance from its Sun and has water, then we will likely find the ‘building blocks of life.’”

There is zero – let me repeat – Zero Evidence of This. They have nothing. At the present time, they have no way to demonstrate that idea is true. At best, this is a faith statement.

The origin of life is still unknown, which also does not mean they shouldn’t look into it. However, what Venter’s team did does not approach the definition of synthetic life but the media – print and electronic – needs eyeballs, so they call it synthetic life when it’s not.

Finally, one thing I’ve noticed that one small group is desperate about is to find a way to shoehorn materialistic naturalism into the Catholic faith. In some cases, in a way that actually gives no consideration for what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, let me be as clear as I can here. As a Catholic, you want evolution to be true. John Paul II said it was “more than a hypothesis” (paragraph 4), Benedict XVI said it “lies behind us as something self-evident.”

Furthermore, scripture tells us that if “the Ethiopian [can] change his skin or the leopard his spots… Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23, RSV). If you want to participate in God’s transformation of the universe, then you should consider the evidence He left in the fossil record and biochemistry and genetics and realize that God is capable of generating the more perfect from the less perfect (cf Aquinas STh I Q72).

Please consider reading Dietrich von Hildebrand’s book Transformation in Christ, and I’ll pray that you have the courage to accept the plan God has for your life.

Sincerely,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[edwest2]

It would be a violation of the current ban to reply to what you’re saying.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Ed, let me be as clear as I can here. As a Catholic, you want evolution to be true. John Paul II said it was “more than a hypothesis” (paragraph 4), Benedict XVI said it “lies behind us as something self-evident.”

It will be helpful to realize that Catholic doctrines are in the realm of faith and morals and not in the material/physical realm of science. When for some reason, science appears to intersect or overlap a Catholic doctrine, Divine Revelation trumps.
Thus there is no imperative to believe new scientific presentations.

When Catholic individuals including popes speak about scientific discoveries, they are speaking as individuals. We are free to agree or not agree with their opinions about science. Nonetheless, we should read the total transcript of their speeches since the total context usually has helpful guidelines for dealing with secular matters.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is unique in all the universe.

 

[caesarjbsquitti]

Half-truths may prove the Genesis story true !

According to the book, “The Jesus Christ Code” there is an analysis of half-truths that suggests that the world definition of truth is incomplete…Truth can Lie…and that is a possible explanation of the ‘original sin’ in the GArden, part of the story of Genesis…

Logic would suggest that if we can prove one part of this incredible story true, then perhaps, there is a high likelihood that the first part of this story can be true…

What is the probability that the definition of 'half-truths" of “lies” and “truth” are incomplete and incorrect…and how did this fool all the philosophers, the intellectuals of recorded history…?

Truth can Lie, when the truth in question (a truth) is in fact part of a greater truth…!!!

Bottom line…'we are not God to know The Truth in its entirety, except through God…Truths from mankinds tree of knowledge are deceptive…and as history has and will show us these truths have created evil and not good…as the “snake” deceived Adam and Eve (mankind in the Garden of Eden…)

from the Jesus Christ Code…

 

[buffalo]

This was actually demonstrated in the 1950s, in the Miller and Urey Experiment. The generally accepted hypothesis is that lightning strikes on the early earth synthesized the building blocks of life which increasingly organized to include lipid membranes and ribozymes (which replicate).

Let it be clear though: this is no way contradicts Catholic teaching. God is immanent in His creation; the lightning strikes obey His commands (through secondary causes): “He made darkness the cover about him; his canopy, heavy thunderheads. Before him scudded his clouds, hail and lightning too. The Lord thundered from heaven; the Most High made his voice resound.” (Ps 18:12-14). And what did God say? “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures” (Gen 1:24).

Furthermore, Aquinas believed that life came forth from inanimate matter and even other forms of life in evolutionary succession. From the Summa Theologica, on the work of the sixth day: “Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then [the sixth day]. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced then otherwise than potentially.” (Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 72, a. 1).

He even discusses mutant creatures produced from corrupted seed dying out and going extinct: “The same thing is true of those substances which Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the ‘ox-progeny’, i.e., half ox and half man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Physics, Book 2, Lecture 14, Section 262)

Also note that Aquinas, following the tradition of Augustine, considered the days of creation to represent indefinite epochs as God continues to govern the world: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn 5:17).

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

The experiment was a failure. It created a mix of both right handed and left handed amino acids. Life is left handed. There are other problems too.

 

[buffalo]

The full article is at sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1190719v1.pdf

The genome was a synthetic copy of an existing genome, with modifications. The modifications were so it could be distinguished from the original. It had some of the experimenters’ names added in and also coding for a blue dye so the change could be recognised visually.

We have been able to make short strands of DNA, a few hundred to a thousand base pairs, for some time now. What Venter’s team did was to make a strand over a million base pairs long. That is significant progress.

rossum

Venter’s claim on “Creation”

 

[buffalo]

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

 

[buffalo]

Understanding the Origin of Life: What Has History Taught Us?

Having given the materialists over a century to come up with an answer, perhaps we should start afresh with what we now do know:

• The statistical likelihood of random mutations and of life emerging from the processes of chance have been consistently shown to be not just improbable but *extremely *improbable (from Schützenberger and Eden in 1966 through Morowitz, Argyle, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe on up to Meyer)2
• Mounting evidence suggests there probably never was a prebiotic soup
• The key to the nature of life is not found in chance and necessity but in understanding life at the cellular level as a complex information-processing system
• This information is not unspecified but is functionally specified
• Efforts to explain a reasonably likely scenario for life by abiotic means have consistently failed

…Today’s origin of life researchers can make no stronger claims for abiogenesis on empirical grounds than could Huxley. Hasn’t more than a century of this failed strategy been long enough? Hasn’t the philosophical faith of materialism premised upon the uniformity of natural causes in *closed system *had enough opportunities to prove its case? History and its accumulating evidence points toward the ID alternative.