"First artificial life 'within months' "

[Borodog]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...28/nlife128.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4SHVMBW02V3FNQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/28/nlife128.xml)

"In a development that has triggered unease and excitement in equal measure, scientists in the US took the whole genetic makeup - or genome - of a bacterial cell and transplanted it into a closely related species.

This then began to grow and multiply in the lab, turning into the first species in the process.

The team that carried out the first “species transplant” says it plans within months to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory.

If that experiment worked, it would mark the creation of a synthetic lifeform."

Cool. The rest of the story contains the typical Luddite BS as well.

[Phil153]

lol. It's a big step from implanting a working, existing genome, to creating a synthetic genome. I fail to see how this is such a major step up from gene splicing.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
lol. It's a big step from implanting a working, existing genome, to creating a synthetic genome. I fail to see how this is such a major step up from gene splicing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some inside knowledge that the team that says they are within months of creating said synthetic genome is not in fact within months of creating said synthetic genome?

[Peter666]

"it plans within months to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory."

What is the definition of scratch? Until they create life out of nothing, I am not impressed.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol. It's a big step from implanting a working, existing genome, to creating a synthetic genome. I fail to see how this is such a major step up from gene splicing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some inside knowledge that the team that says they are within months of creating said synthetic genome is not in fact within months of creating said synthetic genome?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know the laws of physics. I know the current state of chemistry. Nuff said.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool. The rest of the story contains the typical Luddite BS as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

from the article -
[ QUOTE ]
He said the experiment will drive discussions about the safety issues related to synthetic biology and the implications for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Luddite part would be contained in the 'implications', if held to reality the safety concerns would be within the bounds of any other engineering project. Or is your comment addressing the fact that the two usually get morphed?

luckyme

[JuntMonkey]

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/2774/jeffgoldblumuc7.jpg

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What is the definition of scratch? Until they create life out of nothing, I am not impressed.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you should be. I'm sure there are many benefits if this works. From a theological perspective there's no cause for concern. If they fail they show we aren't as smart as we think we are(yet). If they succeed they have demonstrated ID. The one thing they don't do is prove that life could originate or diversify randomly. After all, if God can create a creature that can itself create life, Who gets the greater glory?

[Nielsio]

Yeah, I saw this article on Digg.

This part of it scares the hell out of me:

[ QUOTE ]
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

[/ QUOTE ]


These guys are going to totally [censored] up the world. It will be like importing some type of species on your Island to fight off some other animals and then the first one ends up destroying the whole ecosystem.

...and then times ten and on steroids, if you see what I mean..

[Peter666]

"After all, if God can create a creature that can itself create life, Who gets the greater glory?"

Me, because I will be sure to use my new found knowledge to create my own heaven and earth where the original "God" is not invited and where everything is subject to Me. I will then mock the original God for creating "a boulder so heavy that 'He' cannot lift it" and so would my subjects, for this "God" is clearly not omnipotent, while I would be in My created universe.

For a human to create something out of nothing would be the greatest possible blow to "God" and human intelligence. It would destroy the very foundation of logic and rational thinking: the self evident principle of contradiction.

But of course, these scientists aren't really making something out of nothing, and they are stupid for suggesting they can. They are using material things to make other material things which is the normal human process of creation, all subjected to the real God.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I saw this article on Digg.

This part of it scares the hell out of me:

[ QUOTE ]
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

[/ QUOTE ]


These guys are going to totally [censored] up the world. It will be like importing some type of species on your Island to fight off some other animals and then the first one ends up destroying the whole ecosystem.

...and then times ten and on steroids, if you see what I mean..

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reaction is silly. Being 'scared' lacks the rational outlook that is needed to face new technology, advancements, and discoveries produced by the human mind. Your reaction is antithetical to a civilized outlook and puts you on the same level as the "beasts of the field".

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]


For a human to create something out of nothing would be the greatest possible blow to "God" and human intelligence. It would destroy the very foundation of logic and rational thinking: the self evident principle of contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate on this Peter. I find this very interesting. Thanks.

-Zeno

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Me, because I will be sure to use my new found knowledge to create my own heaven and earth where the original "God" is not invited and where everything is subject to Me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think they call that Hell.

[Subfallen]

None of my Catholic friends are anything like you Peter. Are you some sort of ultra-fundamentalist or something?

[Peter666]

A scientist discovering or creating something relies on facts. And what are facts but an acknowledgement of a reality outside of ourselves; of other things that are subject to laws of the universe which we can use for our selected purpose.

We know that facts or things exist because they are greater than nothing. Nothing is the universal measure that every other thing is compared to, to determine its existence. Now if all of a sudden, things start sprouting out of nothing, nothing is creating something, and therefore IS something. But if it is something, what is the new Nothing? There has to be an absolute notion of nothingness, or else there is no foundation for acknowledging or measuring reality and existence. With no reality, you have no facts and no scientists.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I saw this article on Digg.

This part of it scares the hell out of me:

[ QUOTE ]
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

[/ QUOTE ]


These guys are going to totally [censored] up the world. It will be like importing some type of species on your Island to fight off some other animals and then the first one ends up destroying the whole ecosystem.

...and then times ten and on steroids, if you see what I mean..

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reaction is silly. Being 'scared' lacks the rational outlook that is needed to face new technology, advancements, and discoveries produced by the human mind. Your reaction is antithetical to a civilized outlook and puts you on the same level as the "beasts of the field".

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]



There is a difference between government funded research and consumer driven product development.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Me, because I will be sure to use my new found knowledge to create my own heaven and earth where the original "God" is not invited and where everything is subject to Me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think they call that Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then My Hell would definitely be a tropical delight full of pleasure and loose women instead of a sea of fire and torment.

[David Sklansky]

It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP. Yet you will both agree with me after a moments thought.

Whether humans can create "life", whether it be from scratch or not, is of no consequence, good OR bad theologically speaking. It only becomes a subject for discussion if we can create self conscious life. Whether it be physically similar to us or a computer. The kind of life that reflects on its own existence and knows it will one day die.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


For a human to create something out of nothing would be the greatest possible blow to "God" and human intelligence. It would destroy the very foundation of logic and rational thinking: the self evident principle of contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate on this Peter. I find this very interesting. Thanks.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. socratic irony ftw.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
None of my Catholic friends are anything like you Peter. Are you some sort of ultra-fundamentalist or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your Catholic Friends look something like this: http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d83/satanschoice/clown-eucharist.gif


then it is fair to say I am the Catholic equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether humans can create "life", whether it be from scratch or not, is of no consequence, good OR bad theologically speaking. It only becomes a subject for discussion if we can create self conscious life. Whether it be physically similar to us or a computer. The kind of life that reflects on its own existence and knows it will one day die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, since we know self-conscious life is a doable and commonplace it wouldn't be that impressive in the big scheme of things. A significant impression would be made when the life-form does something we haven't seen before.

luckyme

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
If your Catholic Friends look something like this [image deleted]
then it is fair to say I am the Catholic equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your point. I have great respect for Catholicism. What I'm asking is why you're so rabidly pro-torture.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP. Yet you will both agree with me after a moments thought.

Whether humans can create "life", whether it be from scratch or not, is of no consequence, good OR bad theologically speaking. It only becomes a subject for discussion if we can create self conscious life. Whether it be physically similar to us or a computer. The kind of life that reflects on its own existence and knows it will one day die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Self conscious life is of no consequence theologically speaking until I give it the ability to be greater than Me or God, and/or the ability to use free will to make theological choices of consequence. It is merely a more advanced creation than a rock or chicken and a much better conversationalist.

[Peter666]

I don't understand what you mean by pro-torture, unless you are referring to punishment of criminals or evil doers.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Then My Hell would definitely be a tropical delight full of pleasure and loose women instead of a sea of fire and torment.


[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what you choose instead of God there won't be any significant difference.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Whether humans can create "life", whether it be from scratch or not, is of no consequence, good OR bad theologically speaking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Everything glorifies God in the end, whether it's a worm, Satan or man creating self-conscious life. It's just a matter of degree. our choice is simply do we agree and cooperate or glorify Him unwillingly.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you mean by pro-torture, unless you are referring to punishment of criminals or evil doers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You harp on hell with what seems a fervent glee, whereas my Catholic friends' thoughts on damnation are more like Chesterton's, "To hope for all souls is imperative; and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable. It is tenable, but it is not specially favourable to activity or progress. . . . To say that all will be well anyhow is a comprehensible remark: but it cannot be called the blast of a trumpet. . . . In a thrilling novel (that purely Christian product) the hero is not eaten by cannibals; but it is essential to the existence of the thrill that he might be eaten by cannibals. The hero must (so to speak) be an eatable hero. So Christian morals have always said to the man, not that he would lose his soul, but that he must take care that he didn't. In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man 'damned': but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable."

And Chesterton was a pretty conservative Catholic before ecumenism...so it seems really weird for a Catholic in the 21st century to still be talking as you do.

[Peter666]

It is the opinion of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church that more Catholics go to Hell than to Heaven. And I am certain that thus far 20/21st century Catholics will account for the greatest number of damned Catholics at the Last Judgment. And I prefer the writings of Evelyn Waugh and Hilaire Belloc to those of Chesterton.

But regardless, I haven't been harping on these things at all. I am presenting philosophical arguments against the false notions of scientists who claim to be rational and pretend to do God like deeds such as, "creating life out of scratch" yet are wholly ignorant of the metaphysical foundations which allow their existence and science to begin with. And their discoveries add nothing to the moral good of the human race. It's just more stuff to distract us.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then My Hell would definitely be a tropical delight full of pleasure and loose women instead of a sea of fire and torment.


[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what you choose instead of God there won't be any significant difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you mean that a) The real Hell is like a tropical paradise with loose women; or b) My creation will make no difference to the greater glory of God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you mean that a) The real Hell is like a tropical paradise with loose women; or b) My creation will make no difference to the greater glory of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mean Heaven is the presence of God, Hell is His absence. The circumstances are just lagniappe.

Something of an exaggeration, obviously anyone would choose the tropics over the lake of fire but I'm not sure the perception of suffering would really be that different throughout eternity. One thing I'm sure - if God gave you what you asked for and it didn't include Him, your suffering would be severe. Lewis said it best: "The doors of Hell are barred from the inside".

[RJT]

This is how I understand the article:

The scientists took the genome from one bacterial cell that we’ll call A and transplanted it into a closely related species that we’ll call B. B then became A, or more precisely speaking, B then became exactly like A.

Assuming I am understanding correctly, we then go on to:


[ QUOTE ]
The team that carried out the first “species transplant” says it plans within months to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Synthesis: the putting together of parts or elements so as to form a whole. (Webster)

The above quote taken from the writer of the article is itself is a contradiction. I doubt if the scientists talked like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Producing living cells from synthetic genomes of lab-made DNA would require the ability to move and manipulate whole genomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it lab made DNA or is it DNA manipulated in the lab?
If it is the former, then what is lab made DNA?

BTW, what happened to B? Did they remove B's DNA?

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]

Whether humans can create "life", whether it be from scratch or not, is of no consequence, good OR bad theologically speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously

[ QUOTE ]
It only becomes a subject for discussion if we can create self conscious life. Whether it be physically similar to us or a computer. The kind of life that reflects on its own existence and knows it will one day die.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what’s so special about self-conscious life? Can’t see why it should make any difference.

[Justin A]

This is pretty cool stuff. Too bad this thread turned into a worthless religious debate.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whether humans can create "life", whether it be from scratch or not, is of no consequence, good OR bad theologically speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously

[ QUOTE ]
It only becomes a subject for discussion if we can create self conscious life. Whether it be physically similar to us or a computer. The kind of life that reflects on its own existence and knows it will one day die.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what’s so special about self-conscious life? Can’t see why it should make any difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it matters. How then is David going to replicate himself?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, since we know self-conscious life is a doable and commonplace it wouldn't be that impressive in the big scheme of things. A significant impression would be made when the life-form does something we haven't seen before.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Do we know this? I don't think we do. There's certainly powerful evidence that huge collections of computing units can create emergent self awareness, but to say we know this is the source of consciousness is only true if we assume naturalism is all there is.

While I'm 99.99...9% sure that consciousness would emerge without a "soul", it's not something that we know.

Let's not be like the religious losers in this thread.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, since we know self-conscious life is a doable and commonplace it wouldn't be that impressive in the big scheme of things. A significant impression would be made when the life-form does something we haven't seen before.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Do we know this? I don't think we do. There's certainly powerful evidence that huge collections of computing units can create emergent self awareness, but to say we know this is the source of consciousness is only true if we assume naturalism is all there is.

While I'm 99.99...9% sure that consciousness would emerge without a "soul", it's not something that we know.

Let's not be like the religious losers in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, being a loser in and of itself seems to be working perfectly fine.

[Phil153]

Cmon RJT. Tell me you're not stunned by NotReady's and Peter666's comments in this thread. Their lack of understanding of both theology and science amazes me.

[Peter666]

If God gave me what I asked for and it didn't include Him, I would simply ask to remain ignorant of what "including Him" includes. Thus I would be both happy and devoid of God.

The notion of Hell has to be more than mere absence. The pain of loss only occurs when I know what I am losing. And God is in Hell insofar as He sustains its existence, like every other aspect of creation. If Hell is merely absence,then there is literally nothing to worry about. It needs to throw in some wrath.

So what I am showing here is that insofar as there is an omnipotent God and creatures with free will, PAINFUL PUNISHMENT is a necessary aspect of creation. Any act displeasing to God, whether it be militant atheism, choosing the wrong religion, or any other conduct deemed as sinful by God will have to undergo some sort of displeasing punishment as a metaphysical necessity. If it was not so, God would not be greater than me in any meaningful way.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, since we know self-conscious life is a doable and commonplace it wouldn't be that impressive in the big scheme of things. A significant impression would be made when the life-form does something we haven't seen before.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Do we know this? I don't think we do. There's certainly powerful evidence that huge collections of computing units can create emergent self awareness, but to say we know this is the source of consciousness is only true if we assume naturalism is all there is.

While I'm 99.99...9% sure that consciousness would emerge without a "soul", it's not something that we know.

Let's not be like the religious losers in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant it in a softer sense, rather like "it exists already, bin dun. We already know entities that can fly so creating one that flies is not an astounding event. Creating an entity that can plouttle, that would be something.

In the sense you mention, my expectation is much closer to 100% than that. Certainly a "soul" being necessary has no more evidence for it than a invisible tri-rubic cube being necessary.

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon RJT. Tell me you're not stunned by NotReady's and Peter666's comments in this thread. Their lack of understanding of both theology and science amazes me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you cmon, Phil. You are a smart man. When you throw out those kind of remarks you become a bore. You are much more interesting when you let the “new” Phil show himself.

As far as Peter – well – I don’t really want to take up much of what is now my Saturday night going there.

Regarding NR - although I have no problem disagreeing with some of his theology, I doubt if I could find much fault in his understanding of said theology.

Regarding the OP. From my understanding, our discussion is moot relative to what is actually going on in Maryland.

Questions for science of the future seem to be 1) If science “creates” life out of inanimate matter what does that mean to Religion x, y or z? and perhaps more realistically 2) If science manipulates existing DNA to “create” a new species what does that say, if anything, about x, y or z’s Religion?

I just read Peter’s latest post, I might just have to jump in the discussion. I have 2 hours left of my Saturday night. Perhaps, I can refrain until after midnight.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's not be like the religious losers in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I only hope you're right because losing is my only hope.

[RJT]

Oh, and of course question 3)What happens if man “creates” a being capable of self-awareness? (Sorry for the oversight, David.)

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
A scientist discovering or creating something relies on facts. And what are facts but an acknowledgement of a reality outside of ourselves; of other things that are subject to laws of the universe which we can use for our selected purpose.

We know that facts or things exist because they are greater than nothing. Nothing is the universal measure that every other thing is compared to, to determine its existence. Now if all of a sudden, things start sprouting out of nothing, nothing is creating something, and therefore IS something. But if it is something, what is the new Nothing? There has to be an absolute notion of nothingness, or else there is no foundation for acknowledging or measuring reality and existence. With no reality, you have no facts and no scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

And no theologians either. But as interesting as all this is I lack the faith to embrace the above with the totality that it implies.


[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is the universal measure that every other thing is compared to, to determine its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]


See this: Vaccum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccum) and check out the sections on Historical Perspective and Quantum-mechanical Definition.

-Zeno

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty cool stuff. Too bad this thread turned into a worthless religious debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems interesting. I hope someone answers my questions above so we can all get on the same page as to what it is that is actually happening in Maryland. As usual the news article is rubbish.

[Phil153]

The answers to both questions are "absolutely nothing, unless you completely misunderstand both science and theology"

It's pretty much a settled question that life (at least non conscious life) is composed entirely of organic machines that operate under the laws of physics. Of course we can replicate these machines with sufficient technology, it's purely a matter of putting molecules in the correct place. That has nothing to do with anything.

As David says, the question only become interesting if we can replicate consciousness using only the laws of physics.

edit: 3)What happens if man “creates” a being capable of self-awareness?

It takes a another huge chunk out of religion, similar to discovering there was no flood that covered the earth, no chariots driving the sun,no angry god behind the thunder, no demons behind schizophrenia, and no designer behind a cabbage.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty cool stuff. Too bad this thread turned into a worthless religious debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems interesting. I hope someone answers my questions above so we can all get on the same page as to what it is that is actually happening in Maryland. As usual the news article is rubbish.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a constant problem with science journalism. The reporting is usually slipshod with many mistakes, misinterpretations, bad analogies, and distortion of facts, however unintentional they may be.

-Zeno

[RJT]

I missed the sub link within the OP’s linked article. That second article is much more descriptive of what is going on.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I saw this article on Digg.

This part of it scares the hell out of me:

[ QUOTE ]
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

[/ QUOTE ]


These guys are going to totally [censored] up the world. It will be like importing some type of species on your Island to fight off some other animals and then the first one ends up destroying the whole ecosystem.

...and then times ten and on steroids, if you see what I mean..

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reaction is silly. Being 'scared' lacks the rational outlook that is needed to face new technology, advancements, and discoveries produced by the human mind. Your reaction is antithetical to a civilized outlook and puts you on the same level as the "beasts of the field".

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]



There is a difference between government funded research and consumer driven product development.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more attempt. The difference is not important in relation to what I stated. The rest I suggest you take back to the politics forum.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon RJT. Tell me you're not stunned by NotReady's and Peter666's comments in this thread. Their lack of understanding of both theology and science amazes me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should not amaze you at all, in my opinion.

-Zeno

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
The answers to both questions are "absolutely nothing, unless you completely misunderstand both science and theology"

It's pretty much a settled question that life (at least non conscious life) is composed entirely of organic machines that operate under the laws of physics. Of course we can replicate these machines with sufficient technology, it's purely a matter of putting molecules in the correct place. That has nothing to do with anything.

As David says, the question only become interesting if we can replicate consciousness using only the laws of physics.

edit: 3)What happens if man “creates” a being capable of self-awareness?

It takes a another huge chunk out of religion, similar to discovering there was no flood that covered the earth, no chariots driving the sun,no angry god behind the thunder, no demons behind schizophrenia, and no designer behind a cabbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. How did we get on this topic anyway?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the opinion of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church that more Catholics go to Hell than to Heaven. And I am certain that thus far 20/21st century Catholics will account for the greatest number of damned Catholics at the Last Judgment. And I prefer the writings of Evelyn Waugh and Hilaire Belloc to those of Chesterton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I perfer P.G. Wodehouse to all the above. But that aside your statements have the flavor of Uncle Fred in the Springtime, let lose from his pleasant cage in Hampshire, to reek havac on the common folk and royalty alike.

Given your first sentence in the above quote, I am curious as to how many of the church fathers and Doctors of the Church themselves will end up in hell instead of heaven. Do you have numbers and/or odds on this rather bland statement you have toss out into the public trough?

-Zeno

[Phil153]

1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=11002983&page=0&vc=1 ) 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=11003404&page=0&vc=1 ) 3 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=11004264&page=0&vc=1 )

I don't know what else there is to say about the OP anyway. We have no information on the complexity of this new organism or what they're going to be using to synthesize it.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So what’s so special about self-conscious life? Can’t see why it should make any difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it matters. How then is David going to replicate himself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dud'nt think she had to be awake.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
They transplanted one genetic recipe - in the form of naked DNA, an intact genome - of Mycoplasma mycoides into cells of a closely related bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After transplant, the recipient cells were reprogrammed with the new genetic instructions on the implanted chromosome so they became identical to the donor cells, the team reports today in the journal Science.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To show the process worked Dr Venter’s team had first added two genes to the genome to be transplanted: one conferred antibiotic resistance, and the other caused bacteria that used it to turn blue.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Within four days of the transplants, blue colonies of bugs appeared, indicating that a few M. capricolum had indeed taken up the foreign DNA and were following the new instructions, turning it into Mycoplasma mycoides.

[/ QUOTE ]


How does this show that mc became mm as opposed to just showing that the blue gene transferred in the process took root in mc and became a blue gened mc?

Would this same thing happen if they transplanted mc plus the blue gene into another mc? If they can tell the difference between mm and mc to begin with, why did they need the blue gene to show that it changed?

(CCCCChanges and jean jeanie – sounds all very Bowie to me.)

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is the opinion of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church that more Catholics go to Hell than to Heaven. And I am certain that thus far 20/21st century Catholics will account for the greatest number of damned Catholics at the Last Judgment. And I prefer the writings of Evelyn Waugh and Hilaire Belloc to those of Chesterton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I perfer P.G. Wodehouse to all the above. But that aside your statements have the flavor of Uncle Fred in the Springtime, let lose from his pleasant cage in Hampshire, to reek havac on the common folk and royalty alike.

Given your first sentence in the above quote, I am curious as to how many of the church fathers and Doctors of the Church themselves will end up in hell instead of heaven. Do you have numbers and/or odds on this rather bland statement you have toss out into the public trough?

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Casting my pearls to swine, I'll guesstimate that upon death: 66% of Catholics are damned; 33% will go to purgatory; and 1% straight to Heaven.

Some quotes from Catholic authorities:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/fathers-fewness.htm

A section of a great sermon from St. Leonard:

It is not vain curiosity but salutary precaution to proclaim from the height of the pulpit certain truths which serve wonderfully to contain the indolence of libertines, who are always talking about the mercy of God and about how easy it is to convert, who live plunged in all sorts of sins and are soundly sleeping on the road to hell. To disillusion them and waken them from their torpor, today let us examine this great question: Is the number of Christians who are saved greater than the number of Christians who are damned? Pious souls, you may leave; this sermon is not for you. Its sole purpose is to contain the pride of libertines who cast the holy fear of God out of their heart and join forces with the devil who, according to the sentiment of Eusebius, damns souls by reassuring them. To resolve this doubt, let us put the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, on one side; on the other, the most learned theologians and erudite historians; and let us put the Bible in the middle for all to see.

You can find the whole sermon here:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/leonard.htm

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
it plans within months to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch

[/ QUOTE ]

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
-Carl Sagan

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the opinion of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church that more Catholics go to Hell than to Heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, yes, I'm well aware of the viciousness of the early saints. But what I like about Catholicism is that its moral zeitgeist has evolved somewhat to keep up with the rest of mankind; instead of staying in the Dark Ages with the Protestants.

[ QUOTE ]
But regardless, I haven't been harping on these things at all. I am presenting philosophical arguments against the false notions of scientists who claim to be rational and pretend to do God like deeds such as, "creating life out of scratch" yet are wholly ignorant of the metaphysical foundations which allow their existence and science to begin with. And their discoveries add nothing to the moral good of the human race. It's just more stuff to distract us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reeks of the inhumanity that, once again, I've come to only expect from Protestants: an almost cheerful disregard for science's potential to cure human suffering.

[Peter666]

A vacuum in physics is not the same as nothingness in philosophy. The vacuum article did a poor job of distinguishing the two which leads to the error of reification.

"Reification (also known as hypostatization or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not one." wiki

A concept such as "patriotism" is an example of a non material entity that exists yet has no physical qualities whatsoever. We know it exists, but cannot prove it empirically. Welcome to the spiritual world that requires no faith at all.

Reification is the specialty of Phil153.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A concept such as "patriotism" is an example of a non material entity that exists yet has no physical qualities whatsoever. We know it exists, but cannot prove it empirically. Welcome to the spiritual world that requires no faith at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running exists on a similar plane. Yet you cut off the legs and running goes extinct. Snakes don't run. To say running has no physical qualities is a meaningless concept, it is the quality.
Patriotism operates on a physical substrate, rocks aren't patriotic. Like other psychological effects, we can show it's a physical quality by mucking up the process in the brain that produces it. There is nothing spiritual about patriotism or horniness.

luckyme

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A concept such as "patriotism" is an example of a non material entity that exists yet has no physical qualities whatsoever. We know it exists, but cannot prove it empirically. Welcome to the spiritual world that requires no faith at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running exists on a similar plane. Yet you cut off the legs and running goes extinct. Snakes don't run. To say running has no physical qualities is a meaningless concept, it is the quality.
Patriotism operates on a physical substrate, rocks aren't patriotic. Like other psychological effects, we can show it's a physical quality by mucking up the process in the brain that produces it. There is nothing spiritual about patriotism or horniness.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mixing the feelings which patriotism produces upon contemplation with the initial concept. I can understand patriotism without having any feelings of it whatsoever. Horniness is a naturally occurring condition which emanates from human nature, so it is not the same thing.

The concept of square as a polygon with four equal parts does not exist anywhere in nature perfectly. Yet we are able to derive the concept. How? The abstract concept of square is completely spiritual in nature.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of square as a polygon with four equal parts does not exist anywhere in nature perfectly. Yet we are able to derive the concept. How? The abstract concept of square is completely spiritual in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not at all spiritual. It's a normal product of a physical system. It's not floating around out there in the nether world, it exists only when my brain is functioning well enough to produce and experience it.

All concepts exist only in our minds, when I watch you run, the concept "he's running" is happening in me not in you. If you want to call every thought we have 'spiritual' in nature, fine, but why not just call them thoughts.

If something only exists when there is a physical system around to produce it, it hardly qualifies as being "completely spiritual".

Both the untrue 'squareness' of a tile and the true squareness of the perfect tile exist only when I think of them, products of my physical brain. That one happens to be on the table is irrelevant.

luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
t's not at all spiritual. It's a normal product of a physical system. It's not floating around out there in the nether world, it exists only when my brain is functioning well enough to produce and experience it.

All concepts exist only in our minds, when I watch you run, the concept "he's running" is happening in me not in you. If you want to call every thought we have 'spiritual' in nature, fine, but why not just call them thoughts.

If something only exists when there is a physical system around to produce it, it hardly qualifies as being "completely spiritual".

Both the untrue 'squareness' of a tile and the true squareness of the perfect tile exist only when I think of them, products of my physical brain. That one happens to be on the table is irrelevant.

luckyme


[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that the physical brain produces thoughts as the gall bladder ejects bile , upon consideration, opens up a plethora of questions for which the physical hegemony falls flat on its face. If you admit to non materiality(thoughts) then you are in a fix to comprehend this non materiality from the supposed material.

If you do not see a thought as non material then you should be able to weigh and measure it. If there was a scintilla of "weight" to a thought I am quite sure that the thinker would collapse into an interminable muck.

A significant part of the problem is the perspective of the human being related to a machine in our recent age(industrial,etc.). One can relate to the mechanics of the human being in consideration of his bony system and note the principle of leverage but the dynamics of movement of blood, thought, or will forces do not lend themselves to this mechanistic conception no matter how convenient or easy it is in mechanistic thought /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not see a thought as non material then you should be able to weigh and measure it. If there was a scintilla of "weight" to a thought I am quite sure that the thinker would collapse into an interminable muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would, some would float away.
I forgot about the rule that every aspect of the physical world has 'weight'. How much does running weigh again?
Sometimes physical entities can only be detected by the 'tracks' they leave. I'm not convinced that virtual particles are scintilla-laden either. Are they spiritual?
Get over the 19th century concepts about physical systems, it's much more interesting in this one. Well, unless you can come up with a thought that isn't a quality exhibited on a physical system.

If 'spherical' isn't physical, why do we claim it as a physical property of marbles?
" Got a marble?"
"Yep"
"Is it red?"
"yep"
"Is it spherical?"
"yep"

when did we leave the physical universe in that exchange?

luckyme

[Peter666]

That spiritual things are derived from material things by the human brain is of no consequence to the existence of spiritual realities that cannot be measured or calculated empirically.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That spiritual things are derived from material things by the human brain is of no consequence to the existence of spiritual realities that cannot be measured or calculated empirically.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can take any category of the physical world and call it spiritual. That doesn't make it any less a part of the physical world, it's just a subcategory of it, just as Bears and Baloney are.

To qualify as a separate realm, it would have to survive on it's own, stripped of it's ties to the physical systems that it's a part of. It doesn't.

You original claim -
[ QUOTE ]
a non material entity that exists yet has no physical qualities whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

fails because it does a switcheroo. "thought" is the quality of a physical system. it makes no sense to say 'round' doesn't have any physical qualities. Or that 'fast' has no physical qualities. It doesn't, but that doesn't make it outside of the physical realm. It's what physical objects do... they're fast, or round, or they think, or ..

luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
If 'spherical' isn't physical, why do we claim it as a physical property of marbles?
" Got a marble?"
"Yep"
"Is it red?"
"yep"
"Is it spherical?"
"yep"

when did we leave the physical universe in that exchange?

[/ QUOTE ]

A marble is hardly part of nature unless you consider the human maker. The "thought" of the marble is present in the human mind and then the marble is produced. If one builds a house the thought must preceed the building and not vice versa. If the building preceeded the thought then the human being would produce thoughts and therefore he would have to produce the "thought of himself".

The human being is a "thought" but he is not self creative. What the senses bring to a person is the earthly expression of"thoughts", literally a "harmony of the spheres".

Considering "running" the concept of "movement" is in order. Is movement only within a weight/measure exegesis or do your "thoughts" have "movement".Is the dynamism of "movement" only related to the 100 meter dash by a sprinter?

All of geometry is an expression of that thought full realm of human will. Considering a triangle, a man can manifest the triangle on earth through the will and literally "walk the triangle". The movements of arms,legs, etc. are the consequences of "forces" which present through the 'will" of man. When a man dies the "forces or thoughts' release the earthly part of man but these forces or thoughts do not die.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
When a man dies the "forces or thoughts' release the earthly part of man but these forces or thoughts do not die.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are not talking to yourself here. You are making a claim to another human. Do you have any evidence to back up the claim or did you just have to get some typing practice in. At least throw in some magic stuff while you are explaining this to me, then you'd have a chance I'd say, "hey, this carlo, he's got powers I don't have, maybe he's onto something." Works for the TV guys.

luckyme

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
This is how I understand the article:

The scientists took the genome from one bacterial cell that we’ll call A and transplanted it into a closely related species that we’ll call B. B then became A, or more precisely speaking, B then became exactly like A.

Assuming I am understanding correctly, we then go on to:

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that’s what I understood.

[ QUOTE ]
to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is what does that mean. I suspect someone; probably the reporter has got a little over enthusiastic.

What exactly is a synthetic genome? Probably an existing gnome that someone has made a few changes to? Eh, haven’t they been doing that for years? So how much does an existing gnome has to change before it becomes a new life form rather than a mangled version of the original?

Maybe I am wrong and they intend to designed the whole thing on a computer from scratch and build the complete DNA up base by base.

Also one has to be careful of “what we are going to do next”s. I suspect one of the scientists said something provoking and the reporter took it for a run, arranging his definitions to make it as exciting as possible.

Interesting to see what happens.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not talking to yourself here. You are making a claim to another human. Do you have any evidence to back up the claim or did you just have to get some typing practice in. At least throw in some magic stuff while you are explaining this to me, then you'd have a chance I'd say, "hey, this carlo, he's got powers I don't have, maybe he's onto something." Works for the TV guys.

luckyme


[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that when a man dies his spirit/soul leaves his earthly part. Nothing new here. A natural lead in from the beginnings of our conversation. The "evidence" is in the thinking. This is not "proved" by using a piece of litmus paper. I am not appealing to your known understanding but to the "open mind" which doesn't have to "believe" due to some external force via submission. You can dangle with this for a long time. I wish you well.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not "proved" by using a piece of litmus paper. I am not appealing to your known understanding but to the "open mind" which doesn't have to "believe" due to some external force via submission. You can dangle with this for a long time. I wish you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell does this even mean? It sounds to me like faith, which is fine as long as you present it as such and not as a fact. Learn the difference.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, unless you can come up with a thought that isn't a quality exhibited on a physical system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Zero?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not "proved" by using a piece of litmus paper. I am not appealing to your known understanding but to the "open mind" which doesn't have to "believe" due to some external force via submission. You can dangle with this for a long time. I wish you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell does this even mean? It sounds to me like faith, which is fine as long as you present it as such and not as a fact. Learn the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

guys, let me help you out. carlo is certifiable.

[Peter666]

"To qualify as a separate realm, it would have to survive on it's own, stripped of it's ties to the physical systems that it's a part of. It doesn't."

Based on what evidence? Even if every human brain were to die, the potential of an abstract concept would still be present so long as creation is present. And a spiritual intelligence would be able to understand an abstract object. Just because you don't see or think about something without your own senses and brain doesn't mean it doesn't exist. With that reasoning, everything you haven't learned yet does not exist. Maybe to you, but not to objective reality.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not "proved" by using a piece of litmus paper. I am not appealing to your known understanding but to the "open mind" which doesn't have to "believe" due to some external force via submission. You can dangle with this for a long time. I wish you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell does this even mean? It sounds to me like faith, which is fine as long as you present it as such and not as a fact. Learn the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

guys, let me help you out. carlo is certifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he thinks he's brilliant, though.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
This is not "proved" by using a piece of litmus paper. I am not appealing to your known understanding but to the "open mind" which doesn't have to "believe" due to some external force via submission. You can dangle with this for a long time. I wish you well.



What the hell does this even mean? It sounds to me like faith, which is fine as long as you present it as such and not as a fact. Learn the difference.



guys, let me help you out. carlo is certifiable.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you don't see or think about something without your own senses and brain doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I was more concerned with some hint that it did exist, else it's unicorn time again. If you use the "prove it doesn't" approach to everything you'd like to have it wears out pretty quickly. I was going to say it's not much of an argument but I don't think it rises to the level of an argument.

luckyme

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
"After all, if God can create a creature that can itself create life, Who gets the greater glory?"

Me, because I will be sure to use my new found knowledge to create my own heaven and earth where the original "God" is not invited and where everything is subject to Me. I will then mock the original God for creating "a boulder so heavy that 'He' cannot lift it" and so would my subjects, for this "God" is clearly not omnipotent, while I would be in My created universe.

For a human to create something out of nothing would be the greatest possible blow to "God" and human intelligence. It would destroy the very foundation of logic and rational thinking: the self evident principle of contradiction.

But of course, these scientists aren't really making something out of nothing, and they are stupid for suggesting they can. They are using material things to make other material things which is the normal human process of creation, all subjected to the real God.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reality of course, it is man who creates god out of nothing.

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boggles my mind that you have actually resigned yourself to the idea that you will some day die. Why does everyone just assume that this has to be true. There is no law saying that you must one day die. I'm not joking.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boggles my mind that you have actually resigned yourself to the idea that you will some day die. Why does everyone just assume that this has to be true. There is no law saying that you must one day die. I'm not joking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe no law, but past experience suggests you probably will.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boggles my mind that you have actually resigned yourself to the idea that you will some day die. Why does everyone just assume that this has to be true. There is no law saying that you must one day die. I'm not joking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe no law, but past experience suggests you probably will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right bunny... the laws of probability demand you accept it as inevitable to any measure of statistical significance. (Unless of course medical advances come very far and they come very soon.)

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
A scientist discovering or creating something relies on facts. And what are facts but an acknowledgement of a reality outside of ourselves; of other things that are subject to laws of the universe which we can use for our selected purpose.

We know that facts or things exist because they are greater than nothing. Nothing is the universal measure that every other thing is compared to, to determine its existence. Now if all of a sudden, things start sprouting out of nothing, nothing is creating something, and therefore IS something. But if it is something, what is the new Nothing? There has to be an absolute notion of nothingness, or else there is no foundation for acknowledging or measuring reality and existence. With no reality, you have no facts and no scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boggles my mind that you have actually resigned yourself to the idea that you will some day die. Why does everyone just assume that this has to be true. There is no law saying that you must one day die. I'm not joking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe no law, but past experience suggests you probably will.

[/ QUOTE ]

past experience used to predict that the earth was flat and that people couldn't fly.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe no law, but past experience suggests you probably will.

[/ QUOTE ]

past experience used to predict that the earth was flat and that people couldn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boggles my mind that you have actually resigned yourself to the idea that you will some day die. Why does everyone just assume that this has to be true. There is no law saying that you must one day die. I'm not joking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe no law, but past experience suggests you probably will.

[/ QUOTE ]

past experience used to predict that the earth was flat and that people couldn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure there's a possibility people alive now may live for thousands of years, but there's no great reason to think it's true. It's true that technology progresses exponentially, but not in all directions and you cant predict in advance where it's going to go next. I remember reading a number of claims in the 70s and 80s about computers thinking by 1990. Of course, computer technology improved exponentially over that period, but the problem of making a computer think wasnt solved.

The fact that biological science is likely to progress very rapidly in the next few decades is no reason to think that such progress will include a method for stopping people from dying. It might happen, but chances are you're going to die before the age of say 125 (life expectancy has not increased exponentially over the last century see here for example. (http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=9&event=graphcats_print_list_item) )

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It boggles my mind that I, a semi atheist, have to explain this to both you and Peter 666 regarding religion and the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boggles my mind that you have actually resigned yourself to the idea that you will some day die. Why does everyone just assume that this has to be true. There is no law saying that you must one day die. I'm not joking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe no law, but past experience suggests you probably will.

[/ QUOTE ]

past experience used to predict that the earth was flat and that people couldn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

And about a billion other things, 99.999% of which are true. I'll say it again, you don't really play poker, do you?