What do Religious people say to this?

[Zatzat]

Umm… this was done by others back in the 1970’s I think. Venter has not done anything new.
If Ventner had actually gone and created a bacteria from scratch by mixing a collection of dried and purified chemicals like carbon hydrogen nitrogen sulpher etc., etc., then that would be amazing. But he has just taken a living lifeform already created by God and swapped some chemicals in it, in this case dna. It does not advance scientific knowledge at all as that has been done already 40 years ago.

I see you’ve reached into your grab bag of common objections to this amazing scientific feat.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

The synthesized genome was inserted into an existing bacterial cell, with it’s extant suite of proteins and other molecules, this is entirely true. Venter and colleagues relied on the transcriptional enzymes and ribosomes and so forth already present in the cell to kick-start the activities of the DNA. However, this was only to bootstrap the genome into functionality; within 30 generations of this novel line, Venter estimates, every one of those proteins and every molecule of the cell will have been replaced with the products of the artificial genome.

So, if after a period of time, you’ve got a cell whose DNA was produced by a machine, and whose membranes, enzymes, structural proteins, and metabolic by-products were all produced by that machine-generated DNA or the protein products of that DNA, what makes it a non-synthetic cell?

 

[tonyrey]

I see you’ve reached into your grab bag of common objections to this amazing scientific feat.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

The synthesized genome was inserted into an existing bacterial cell, with it’s extant suite of proteins and other molecules, this is entirely true. Venter and colleagues relied on the transcriptional enzymes and ribosomes and so forth already present in the cell to kick-start the activities of the DNA. However, this was only to bootstrap the genome into functionality; within 30 generations of this novel line, Venter estimates, every one of those proteins and every molecule of the cell will have been replaced with the products of the artificial genome.

So, if after a period of time, you’ve got a cell whose DNA was produced by a machine, and whose membranes, enzymes, structural proteins, and metabolic by-products were all produced by that machine-generated DNA or the protein products of that DNA, what makes it a non-synthetic cell?

You would still not have created a living cell from scratch…

 

[buffalo]

You realise that this explains absolutely nothing? If all God is boils down to a first event, to worship that is absurd.

Well now that is a whole different issue. Are you admitting that there is a first cause we call God?

 

[lemondiesel]

wow my apologizes i didn’t realize i made doubled posted this thread on accident

my thoughts on this issue.

This indicates that a) we know enough about genetics to be able to synthesize a new genome, b) our gene-splicing techniques are good enough to allow us to successfully swap entire genomes out of cells.

Just because we can do it doesn’t mean it can’t happen on its own. That would be like saying that because humans managed to create a fire by arranging a circle of stones, piling up fuel in just the right way, getting some tinder and flint, and blowing carefully, that that indicates that it takes a certain degree of intelligence and organizational skill to make a fire happen. Well of course it ****ing doesn’t, all you need is a well-placed lightning bolt to get a fire!

It’s just that if we want to harness this naturally-occurring phenomenon for our own purposes then we need to invest some time and thought into how to make this process work for us.

Now, I am all for any technological advancement, it is going to occur wether we like it or not. There are to many humans suffering not to proceed we have passed the point of turning back, I do however think it must be done carefully.

To many big corporations could care less about accidents (BP comes to mind).
With great power comes great responsibility and I must admit mankind is lacking in this respect.

There are plenty of resources on this earth enough for every human to lead a life of dignity and prosperity. Most of us work all our lives to make another man rich and that is wrong in my 02. Who needs more money than they can spend in five life times? Got to kill that Ego to see the truth.

But yeah I have been waiting to sink my teeth into a nice synthetic steak for awhile now. This technology is just the beginning. Pandora’s box is open what shall we do with the contents it spews forth? I hope we make the correct choices.

Peace friends

 

[Thing]

I see you’ve reached into your grab bag of common objections to this amazing scientific feat.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

The synthesized genome was inserted into an existing bacterial cell, with it’s extant suite of proteins and other molecules, this is entirely true. Venter and colleagues relied on the transcriptional enzymes and ribosomes and so forth already present in the cell to kick-start the activities of the DNA. However, this was only to bootstrap the genome into functionality; within 30 generations of this novel line, Venter estimates, every one of those proteins and every molecule of the cell will have been replaced with the products of the artificial genome.

So, if after a period of time, you’ve got a cell whose DNA was produced by a machine, and whose membranes, enzymes, structural proteins, and metabolic by-products were all produced by that machine-generated DNA or the protein products of that DNA, what makes it a non-synthetic cell?

Umm… the fact that they did not create life, as the headlines claimed. ‘Artificial life created.’
When he can actually create life from dried purified chemicals and warm water he can come back and make that claim.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Another interesting fact is that humans exhibit cannibalistic behaviour, usually based on religious practices. It is also not unusual to find humans with bits of themselves missing because of previous attacks. It is also not rare to find humans putting other humans to the sword in the name of God. History is littered with examples of it.

So, again, I put it to you that since human pack behaviour is almost identical to that of dogs, birds, piranahs, the other great apes, it is hardly sensible to take survival traits, slap the label “morality” on them and use them as evidence of God.

Doesn’t happen very often that they actually take bites out of each other when they’re hungry, though, does it? Of course, as ever, I’m sure you can dig up a few tribes here and there, but it’s all soooooooooo several millenia ago on the whole… do you think that might just be something to do with that so called mythical morality thing perhaps?

And do you think Piranha go through guilt trips over killing old uncle herbert for breakfast?

 

[Moonstruck888]

This should really have its own thread.

And so it shall…

 

[Moonstruck888]

And do you think Piranha go through guilt trips over killing old uncle herbert for breakfast?

From what I’ve seen on the thread here called “Are Americans Less Evolved” there isn’t any lack of humans that have no compunction about killing either…

Nor does a piranah fish sit and contemplate imaginative methods of torturing it’s fellows. Piranah fish don’t impale each other on spikes, or burn each other to death, or waterboard each other, or give each other electroshock “therapy” or use will sapping techniques or propaganda to sanction the use of technology in stealing each other’s resources.

I would love to be able to say that less evil has been foisted on the world by human beings than has been by piranah fish, but sadly we are immeasurably more wasteful, more vicious, more greedy and more devious than any other predator this planet has ever seen.

I’m sure a piranah is equally bad as us in intent, but they are spared the worst cancers of our power by not having it.

 

[tonyrey]

I would love to be able to say that less evil has been foisted on the world by human beings than has been by piranah fish, but sadly we are immeasurably more wasteful, more vicious, more greedy and more devious than any other predator this planet has ever seen.

I’m sure a piranah is equally bad as us in intent, but they are spared the worst cancers of our power by not having it.

Yet you cannot explain why we have power and they do not…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

From what I’ve seen on the thread here called “Are Americans Less Evolved” there isn’t any lack of humans that have no compunction about killing either…

Nor does a piranah fish sit and contemplate imaginative methods of torturing it’s fellows. Piranah fish don’t impale each other on spikes, or burn each other to death, or waterboard each other, or give each other electroshock “therapy” or use will sapping techniques or propaganda to sanction the use of technology in stealing each other’s resources.

I would love to be able to say that less evil has been foisted on the world by human beings than has been by piranah fish, but sadly we are immeasurably more wasteful, more vicious, more greedy and more devious than any other predator this planet has ever seen.

I’m sure a piranah is equally bad as us in intent, but they are spared the worst cancers of our power by not having it.

Oh dear - and I thought I had misanthropy bad! Thing is, would a piranha even care? You bewail these terrors, but you would deny the only thing that has the slightest chance of redemption, so you’re actually wishing for worse!

Hmmm - actually I think I’ll check out that “Are Americans Less Evolved” thread - sounds like one of those lovely bits of uber-Darwinian fascisms that makes me glad I’m a Christian
(thinks: If I could be bothered being strategic, I should have checked to see who posted it before saying that! Ah well…)

 

[jtodisco]

I know this has been repeated numerous times already on this thread, but to reiterate God created all that is out of nothing. I find what the scientists have been able to do quite amazing, when you consider our human limitations, but I would not compare what they did to what God has done. Starting things that way would ensure confusion and disagreement because you are talking about two very different things. It would be like (key word here “like”, I’m not saying this is a perfectly parallel analogy here) saying that the person who invented the bicycle and a person who years later built their own bicycle did the same thing. Clearly they did not.

Also, God did create humanity in His own image. Many people out there take this notion to a ridiculously literal degree (which would be where most of our modern anthropomorphizing of God comes from). But when we think of how God created us in His image we should look at what inborn traits make us most like God. According to the Church one of these traits would be mankind’s capacity for reason. Another would be our capacity for love, our capacity to create, etc. Where am I going with this line of thought?

Well, God is the Creator and we are His creatures. However, God created us to love Him and also created us in His image. Therefore it is only natural that the creatures should want to emulate their Creator (even in cases where they do not realize this is what they are doing). So mankind “creates” many things (the meaning of the word “creates” in this sense is quite different from how God creates, as already noted above and in previous posts by others). So, provided morality isn’t violated in the process, man’s desire to be like God is a good and natural desire. To contrast this briefly take the two opposing examples: Saint Francis of Assisi lives his life trying to follow Christ’s teachings as closely as possible vs. the people of Babel trying to be like God in a prideful manner. Both instances involve people wanting to be like God, but as you can see the motivation behind each example is drastically different.

Now I can’t say what true motivations were behind the scientists that created this DNA were. I would like to imagine that their motivations were a combination of a desire to help their fellow man (since there are potentially dramatic medical consequenes from work like this) and a simple desire to create. If this is the case and their work truly does benefit others and is not used to violate God’s will, then what a wonderful advancement! But if the motivations or the uses of this development go against the will of God then once again (as mankind does regularly) we are falling into hubris.

Anyway, that’s just my own small and not all that important opinion on the matter. If it helps to clarify things then I am glad. If not, well…I have tried.

 

[KindredSoul]

One of the questions at the outset of the thread was essentially: “Does this make God’s feat of creations less impressive?” Someone pointed out (correctly) that it doesn’t, because God created everything ex-nihilo. This was met with a “prove it.” This missed the point of the answer, however.

This thread is not another “Prove God exists” thread, at least not if we are to have any meaningful conversation of the topic (because in that case every philosophical question about God would devolve into the same “Prove He exists” debate). To answer the initial challenge mentioned above, we must answer it as though God’s existence or the necessity of His existence is a given, such that “If God exists or must exist, does this finding mean that we humans are capable of what you Catholics say God did at Creation, and thus His action was less impressive?” The answer is plainly and simply no. We Catholics say that God created everything absolutely out of nothing. If we are right, then a scientist managing to manipulate matter and forces that already exist (which we believe God created in themselves) to create life is not at all on par or even comparable to God’s own act of Creating the Universe.

To answer the other initial question, as to whether or not this would mean that we too could have arisen from strictly natural means, the answer would be “No” from our point of view. If we have souls (if–and from our point of view we do, and it is our opinion being asked in the thread’s title; again, this is not up for debate, as that debate is not necessary for the purposes of simply answering the thread’s central questions from a religious person’s point of view) then the Scientists’ creation of life is also not demonstrably on par with what we believe God did. According to us (no matter if or why one disagrees) God created not only some organic creature that can move and act–He created a soul, something we have believed all along is scientifically unobservable from the outside. Something soulless could thus conceivably move, act, appear, and function (outwardly and scientifically) in an identical fashion to something that had a soul, with the exception that it wouldn’t really be an entity–there would be no “I” there (according to beliefs wherein a soul is necessary), even though it would act, respond, and (if complex enough) show brain activity on every level we would. Therefore, given our belief that we have souls, creation of organic life at the hands of a scientist still doesn’t prove or indicate that human beings as we believe them to be could have originated in the same naturalistic way. A scientist would have to create a soul in order for that to follow, and if (totally for the sake of argument) he did, only the soul itself would have the ability to scientifically discern itself by virtue of knowing it was an “I”/soul (since for all anyone but the manmade soul itself knows, it only has all the physical signs of life, including brain activity should science create a form so complex, but is in fact a “Philosophical-zombie” and in fact there is no “I” there), meaning there would be no real way for the scientist or anyone else to know whether or not he had succeeded at this, and thus his experiment could not prove or indicate anything on this particular matter.

So no, these events are not theologically alarming to a person of Faith, and do not diminish the unique role of God in any way as we see it.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[lemondiesel]

I think many of you misunderstood what my intentions were to this topic. Most likely it was my wording of the questions

I had (still swaying, on the fence) been Atheist for quite sometime now, and up until I saw this “historical accomplishment,” I thought life was a very common thing. I mean even though we have evidence of bacteria on Mars and on the Moon, it brings to the issue of how these were formed. It took the most advanced conscious on Earth, just to create these synthetic life forms.

I have been hearing many viewpoints from the Atheist side of this issue, saying “We are one step closer to knowing the truth!” It seems to me that the truth is impossible for life to be eventually created from nothing.

Man, I hate being on the fence.

 

[Thing]

I think many of you misunderstood what my intentions were to this topic. Most likely it was my wording of the questions

I had (still swaying, on the fence) been Atheist for quite sometime now, and up until I saw this “historical accomplishment,” I thought life was a very common thing. I mean even though we have evidence of bacteria on Mars and on the Moon, it brings to the issue of how these were formed. It took the most advanced conscious on Earth, just to create these synthetic life forms.

I have been hearing many viewpoints from the Atheist side of this issue, saying “We are one step closer to knowing the truth!” It seems to me that the truth is impossible for life to be eventually created from nothing.

Man, I hate being on the fence.

Nasa does not believe there are bacteria on Mars. The bacteria on the Moon were brought there by Apollo missions from Earth. I do not know of any truly extra-terrestrial bacteria.

 

[lemondiesel]

Nasa does not believe there are bacteria on Mars. The bacteria on the Moon were brought there by Apollo missions from Earth. I do not know of any truly extra-terrestrial bacteria.

but the bacteria continued to strive on the moon and adapted very easily, apparently. Also about Mars, here is a quote from an article on timesonline.

It showed that microscopic worm-like structures found in a Martian meteorite that hit the Earth 13,000 years ago are almost certainly fossilised bacteria. The so-called bio-morphs are embedded beneath the surface layers of the rock, suggesting that they were already present when the meteorite arrived, rather than being the result of subsequent contamination by Earthly bacteria.

 

[KindredSoul]

I think many of you misunderstood what my intentions were to this topic. Most likely it was my wording of the questions

I had (still swaying, on the fence) been Atheist for quite sometime now, and up until I saw this “historical accomplishment,” I thought life was a very common thing. I mean even though we have evidence of bacteria on Mars and on the Moon, it brings to the issue of how these were formed. It took the most advanced conscious on Earth, just to create these synthetic life forms.

I have been hearing many viewpoints from the Atheist side of this issue, saying “We are one step closer to knowing the truth!” It seems to me that the truth is impossible for life to be eventually created from nothing.

Man, I hate being on the fence.

My sincerest sympathy to your plight.

Unfortunately, we may simply at an impasse. For Theists, we simply don’t see it as an impossibility for life (in the sense of organic material) to be created from nothing, if it was Created by the very Author of the material universe.

To say that something was created from nothing just means it came from Non-matter, not that it literally just suddenly started to exist with no cause whatsoever (obviously, if we believe in God as the cause, we do not hold the latter to be true). What is the Non-matter in question, according to Theists? God’s power (which, in a sense is an expression of God Himself, so in a sense we may simply say “God”). We do not understand that power, we do not truly understand the Being, nor do we even begin to comprehend it or Him in many ways (we can’t speak of “What makes it/Him work?” etc.). But this does not mean such a thing is impossible.

Consider this: What if we created a self-reproducing nano-tech life form using a highly complex machine made of the rarest materials in the universe, materials that were made of some totally foreign and hitherto undiscovered type of “Matter” that didn’t even obey the same Laws of Physics (not necessarily even made of protons, electrons, etc.). Then, let us say that this machine were sucked into a black hole, so that no one could ever see it or the materials it was made of again. Billions upon billions of years later, war and disaster have eradicated all our records. It would be inconceivable that such a machine ever existed, since even the very materials of which it was made virtually do not exist anymore, and it would be easy for the people of that age to assume that the nano-tech life forms must have come to exist by some means available to them. They have no concept of the parallel type of “Matter” from which the machine was made. Yet it is logically possible that such a thing should exist and might even exist somewhere out there in the universe right now–we just have no concept of what it would be, what it would be made of, etc., so the “why,” “how,” “what,” and “whence” are totally impossible to grasp. But none of this means it is actually impossible. It is the same with God and His creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo.

No, I am not saying that God is a vanished machine, nor am I advocating a “Deist”-like hypothesis, but rather the analogy is following the belief that whatever process by which God created the Universe is not still in motion (even though God Himself still exists and hasn’t left–though neither is His supernatural in-person, scientifically discernible revelation of Himself constantly in motion), so we cannot observe it or conceive of it anymore than the hypothetical future humans could observe or conceive of the completely foreign matter of which the machine was made, despite the logical possibility of its existence. Thus, of course it will seem almost inconceivable for us that such a process, by which something came from nothing, could occur. However, just as with the machine analogy, that we cannot conceive of something often enough only means we have absolutely no basis for comparison, not that this “something” is truly impossible. Without the process by which God created everything Ex-nihilo repeating itself, we have no basis to compare or grasp it; it’s easy to confuse that with meaning it is impossible, but that doesn’t mean it is truly so.

I hope this is of some use.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Moonstruck888]

Oh dear - and I thought I had misanthropy bad! Thing is, would a piranha even care? You bewail these terrors, but you would deny the only thing that has the slightest chance of redemption, so you’re actually wishing for worse!

Hardly. What I simply beg for is that the one creature that can analyze it’s actions to see if they are good or evil might refrain from talking, acting and believing without thinking. I’m rather afraid that you are helping to knock what little faith in humanity I have left.

Hmmm - actually I think I’ll check out that “Are Americans Less Evolved” thread - sounds like one of those lovely bits of uber-Darwinian fascisms that makes me glad I’m a Christian
(thinks: If I could be bothered being strategic, I should have checked to see who posted it before saying that! Ah well…)

The thread has nothing to do with Darwinism, it’s a sociological thread.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yet you cannot explain why we have power and they do not…

Of course I can explain it.

It’s because we have enhanced pattern recognition filtering by virute of having a large Cerebrum supplied with a massively increased proportion of our body’s energy supply. This gives us the neural complexity to envision advanced uses of tools to create technology. Technology is the source of our power. Technology gives us the ability to pass on knowledge, to spread knowledge and to extend the power and reach of our bodies…

 

[JohnT58]

Without wanting to go off track again, as this is a Christian website, Catholic specifically, we don’t have to defend DT22:23-24, which incidently,calls for the execution of the man also, or indeed the man alone, lest this should be seen as anotherexample of an anti-women bias in the Bible. That said, Jesus said ‘Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.’ That is all Christians have to defend as regards stoning women, and kind of pulls the rug from under the argument.

That aside, this is a remarkable breakthrough in scientific terms, with enormous potential.
I would still contend though, that they haven’t created a new life form, rather engineered a pre-existing one. A remarkable piece of tinkering, an extremely complex piece of tinkering, but tinkering with something that already existed nonetheless. If they had created life out of inanimate matter that would be stupendously impressive, but this remains impressive in any case. (Nevermind creating matter out of nothing!)

Lets just hope that this is handled carefully, and to the benefit of mankind. That takes account of humanity and the planet and the effects of new organisms on both.
It is worrying though, that as I saw reported elsewhere, the large oil companies hand a hand in bankrolling this research. Everyone knows that for those companies profits come first before any wider ethical considerations, or the treatment of human beings and the environment.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hardly. What I simply beg for is that the one creature that can analyze it’s actions to see if they are good or evil might refrain from talking, acting and believing without thinking. I’m rather afraid that you are helping to knock what little faith in humanity I have left.

Well, I am sorry, but I argued against your points, and you proved incapable of defending them. They were fairly basic answers, but let me know when you have something more convincing that requires more

The thread has nothing to do with Darwinism, it’s a sociological thread.

If you think Darwinism has nothing to do with sociology. I think you’re missing something… that evil, damning accusation - “you are less evolved than I…” has got *very * popular recently.

Bit like the old beardy proto-fascist himself!

Coincidence? I don’t theeenk soo! :tsktsk: