This (if it is true) did not happen by accident.
It took intelligence. And thousands of years.
God is much better at it.
Check out the real story HERE.
The fact is, they have not created anything, only rearranged what was already here.
To create life, they would have to take nothing, build a bunch of atoms, use them to build molecules, then combine them with other elements they have also created (minerals, etc.) to create living cells.
They have not done that, therefore they have created nothing.
18 comments:
Ah Joe.
By your definition, no human has ever created anything.
Leonardo Da Vinci, Bach, Beethoven, none of them created anything. They just rearranged what was there.
Look, you may not like it, but humans are about to get very, very good at creating new life forms that have never existed before.
Life forms constructed by us, with characteristics and features designed by us, to do things that no living organism has ever done before.
The world of bio-engineering is upon us and I could be more excited.
XO: Look, you may not like it, but you are wrong.
DaVinci, Bach, Beethovan are some of my favorites.
And, as any third grader would know, I was not refering to "creativity," but to "creation."
Besides, there is a monumental difference between etherial ideas expressed through the media of canvas or music, and the actual bringing into being something physical from nothing.
Thanks for the lecture, though.
Frankly, I love the world of bioengineering. I have no problem with what has been done. I eat food that has been radiated for protection from various entities (when I can get it), corn that has been biologically engineered and lots more.
I just don't want something called "creation" that isn't creation at all.
A car is not created, it is designed, engineered and built from existing stuff.
The point, though, seems missed by your mind in your rush to find fault wherever you can.
The point is: IT TOOK INTELLIGENCE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS FEAT!
Just as it took intelligence to create all that is from nothingness. (Yeah, I know...you don't like that part. Pity).
SelahV: If you happen by here, please tell me how to comment on your blog. I can't get the comments to open.
Looks like a set of blue nipples made out of jello to me.
Krystal: You could be right! I hadn't thought about that.
They most certainly created something:
The first synthetic cell--a synthesized natural gnome.
To say they've created nothing is to deny scientific reality. You're welcome to define it that way, of course, but no one in the scientific community will agree that they created nothing.
We have no idea what this will lead to in helping mankind solve some difficult health and environmental problems.
It's a very good thing.
I Have Not Created Life, says Venter: "We've created the first synthetic cell. We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome." Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University agrees. “My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form. What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form."
SK: See, even you missed my point, 'cause you want to argue about the "create" part.
Let's see if I can put this in liberal-speak
I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WORD "CREATE," THE POST WAS ABOUT THE NEED FOR INTELLIGENCE.
Are you making the point that scientists are not intelligent?
Of course they are.
Did you read the part in my comment above about how I like what they have done?
Did you just choose to ignore that?
Are you just looking for a fight?
I can give that to you if that's what you want, but why?
While we may have different ideas about the meaning of the word "create," we do agree that these synthetic cells were made by intelligent beings, don't we?
Surely someone with your brain power can understand that. Right?
The scientists have not created a cell from scratch.They claim to have created a genome from scratch but they may have just rearranged the atoms in order to form a different cell. The scientists dug DNA out of the nucleus and replaced that with new DNA into that same nucleus.
How did the scientists bond all those atoms together in order to form a whole nucleus? There are many unanswered questions that the scientists did not answer, or that weren't stated in the article.
They could have used a genome from another organism in order to form another organism.
Teresa: That's right. Man is very good at rearranging what God has created and calling it his own.
I responded to this:
"The fact is, they have not created anything, only rearranged what was already here."
I disagreed with your statement "...they have not created anything..."
You wrote:
"To create life, they would have to take nothing, build a bunch of atoms, use them to build molecules, then combine them with other elements they have also created (minerals, etc.) to create living cells."
To which I referred you to the scientists' statements:
"I Have Not Created Life, says Venter: "We've created the first synthetic cell. We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome." Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University agrees. “My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form."
It is you, not I, who brought "To create life..." into your post.
The title of your post is this:
"Scientists" "Create" Artificial Life???"
The scientists themselves deny that statement. And to point this out to you, I copied and pasted what the scientists said about their own creation--that they DID NOT create artificial life.
You don't like the scientists using the word "creation" for their creation?
It is a perfectly apt word for what they did. There is more than one definition for the word "create," and what the scientists did falls under one of those definitions.
If you were "...not concerned with the word create..." as you stated, then why is it in quotes in your title and mentioned 3 times in your post?
PS. You read an awful lot into my comments that wasn't there and made many wrong assumptions about my motives for commenting.
I do agree with you, however, that this new creation can be credited to the scientists' intelligence.
A group of scientists were very excited - they had discovered the secret to creating life from the dust of the earth! GOD in His glory came down, and challenged the scientists to make life, as they have claimed.
The scientists put their heads together, grabbed a handful of dirt, and ...
"Ah ah ah!" said God. "That's MY dirt. Make your own!"
"I just don't want something called "creation" that isn't creation at all." (Joe)
"They most certainly created something" (Shaw K)
No, Joe was absolutely clear in his initial point - "CREATION" always refers to the creation of LIFE. There really aren't "many definitions of the word create."
A builder doesn't "create" a building, he merely rearranges bricks and mortar, which is why it's NOT called "creating a building," but "erecting a structure." A song isn't "created," it's composed. Everything humans do is built upon a larger framework constructed (not "created") by previous humans.
Joe used the term "Create" correctly, in obviously referring to "the creation of life...or some new life form."
And the researchers YOU quoted agree completely with Joe, that they DID NOT CREATE LIFE - "I Have Not Created Life," says Venter: "We've created the first synthetic cell. We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome."
That last sentence is in complete agreement with, "To create life, they would have to take nothing, build a bunch of atoms, use them to build molecules, then combine them with other elements they have also created (minerals, etc.) to create living cells."
On the other hand, Jim Collins' (a bio-engineer at Boston University) quote, “My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form"...seems to refer to yourself;
"It is you, not I, who brought "To create life..." into your post." (Shaw K)
That's untrue. The title of the BBC article attached to Joe's initial post was 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
The title of your post is this: "Scientists" "Create" Artificial Life???" (Shaw K)
That's a fair title, given that so many in the media have mis-characterized this as "the first step in man creating life." It turns out that very, VERY few science journalists take much in the way of hard sciences in College, just as VERY few economic journalists have studied much economics.....those courses tend to be far harder than English composition courses and ethics in journalism courses.
"The scientists themselves deny that..." (they created life). (Shaw K)....and that bolsters Joe's position and undermines the foolish way the media has portrayed this.
"'CREATION' always refers to the creation of LIFE."
No one used the word "creation" in this discussion. Not even Joe. Nor was it used in the link Joe provided.
I disagreed with his statement that the scientists "have not created anything..."
"The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy.
The scientists "decoded" the chromosome of an existing bacterial cell - using a computer to read each of the letters of genetic code.
They copied this code and chemically constructed a new synthetic chromosome, piecing together blocks of DNA.
The team inserted this chromosome into a bacterial cell which replicated itself.
Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
There is no question that Dr. Venter and his team created a cell that did not naturally exist in nature.
BTW, the word "creation" does not always refer to life.
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
cre·a·tion (kr-shn)
n.
1.
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3.
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.
creation [kriːˈeɪʃən]
n
1. the act or process of creating
2. the fact of being created or produced
3. something that has been brought into existence or created, esp a product of human intelligence or imagination
4. the whole universe, including the world and all the things in it
5. (Clothing & Fashion) an unusual or striking garment or hat
creational adj
Nowhere in my answer do I use the word "creation."
It appears you and Joe are quibbling with me over words. But a brief look at a number of dictionaries shows that "creation" most certainly does not always refer only to life.
SK: We are actually closer than you want to see. My point, as I have stated before, was that it took intelligence to achieve what these scientists achieved. How much more intelligence must it have taken to create the stuff of the universe: atoms; molecules; DNA; planets; stars; moons; nebulae; quarks; black holes; etc.?
"No one used the word "creation" in this discussion. Not even Joe. Nor was it used in the link Joe provided." (Shaw K)
Actually, that's untrue....the title of this post is; "Create" Artificial Life???"
So.....Joe actually DID use the C word.
EVERY scientist involved agreed that they DID NOT CREATE life.
It's true that man cannot "create" things. A building is merely erected, NOT created...taking existing substances and combining them in different ways is building, composing, but not, in any exact sense (and you claim to be dedicated to exactitude) creating.
"The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy." (Shaw K)
Again that's oddly inexact.
Oddly, because it implies that a "machine" (something not ALREADY alive, and created by man, as machines generally are) and NOT an actual living cell was used to complete or "boot up" the synthesis.
In fact, it wasn't a "synthesis machine" that was used but a host cell...an already living cell.
This is the exact description of the process by the lead researcher on that team;
"We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome." (Dr. Venter)
Dr. Venter was purposely exact, while you, claiming to desire exactitude, have been purposely inexact in the way you tried to redefine this.
They didn't create life...they didn't "create," (being exact) at all...they composed a synthetic bio-machine out of existing building blocks and used an already living cell a "recipient cell" to enervate or "boot up" their synthesis.
What's at issue is your own inexact description and your subsequent erroneous conclusions, that they "did create...something"
Well of course you're wrong, JMK.
This passage that you disagree with and say is inexact:
"The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy."
was taken from the article--it is not my definition.
The scientists absolutely created something that did not exist naturally in nature.
And one of the definitions for the word "creation" is:
3. something that has been brought into existence or created, esp a product of human intelligence or imagination
If you want to make up your own definitions and ignore reality, no one will stop you. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
No reputable scientists would agree with you.
I think it goes back to that great joke about the atheist who told God he could make life and as he bent down to start, God said "Hey, get your OWN dirt"....
"We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome." (Dr. Venter)
Shaw, which part of that are you refusing to buy and why?
my Word Verification is CODSLOP..that's exactly what I say to anybody who thinks this was creating something from scratch.
Z,
Please go back and read my comments.
Nowhere do I say Venter created life. I assert that the use of the word "create" or "creation" is proper.
That is all.
I don't know what you're talking about, but you apparently haven't read my comments carefully.
Please find, copy and paste where I state that I believe life was created.
Most of the troubles in this life comes from misunderstandings and not reading carefully .
Post a Comment