13 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyOk
Give me one example in which science has observed life coming from nonlife or science creating life from nonlife. If not, how can you say that science does not indicate that life comes from other life sources?
Scientists can compose a living organism (ultra-simple, only 100-200 genes) from proteins and other "non-living" material. The new artificial organism can reproduce itself, copy its genetic code, feed, well... just like a stupid simple bacteria.
Of course there's an ethical debate going on forbidding all this, because "only God is allowed to create life, so stop playing God". Of course this is a big punch in the stomach for all guys saying "god is essential to create life".
He is NOT. Life is not transcendental. You are not special. Life can be created from a bunch of elements (a huge bunch) in special conditions.
I guess your next step is to say "god created earth and the conditions so that life could be created from the bunch of complex elements that existed there, evolving through times by the hand of god, blablabla"
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasWow ... i added 2-3 new words to my vocabulary by reading this.
With all this talk of "scientific proof" I find myself asking the question, "What exactly is science trying to prove?" Aren't we all making inferences based on observable phenomena? We can say that evolution is verifiable, but whose paradigm are we corroborating by doing so? Nobody's, really. Every aspect of the universe which we aim our magnifying g ...[text shortened]... ually is. We'd be wise to be a bit humbler in our assessment of what we ultimately know.
But I agree with you. We are catching glimpses, trying to make a huge puzzle, without knowing where the pieces belong. I'm quite humble there. Scientific proof is not in the same sense of mathematical proof. It's kind of a "within reasonable doubt", and always admits the possibility to fault and error.
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoReferences?
Ok
Scientists can compose a living organism (ultra-simple, only 100-200 genes) from proteins and other "non-living" material. The new artificial organism can reproduce itself, copy its genetic code, feed, well... just like a stupid simple bacteria.
Of course there's an ethical debate going on forbidding all this, because "only God is allowed to create lif ...[text shortened]... plex elements that existed there, evolving through times by the hand of god, blablabla"
13 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThis one is old, but a precursor. From dead material and spinning it around, they create live stuff, 100% identical to a god created virus:
References?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1327340
Of course you can say "but viruses are not life". There are "tougher" experiments with DNA instead of simple RNA:
US patent application no. 20070122826
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070122826%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070122826&RS=DN/20070122826
And creating computer simulations with cellular automota that reproduces cell behavior quite accurately:
http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/2004/05/0016/
Now something you can actually read, in case you didn't have an education in science:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526114.000?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19526114.000
I can ask my friend who does top research in this field to provide any articles on the subject, if you are interested.
Now... man can create life from non life... your next step is to say "unicellular organism are not life" and then "they have no conscience and can't distinguish Good from Evil", so they can't count. "They have no soul, so it does not count..."
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoIf I am not mistaken a vius simply alters a way a living organism operates. It has no other function that this so without a living oranism to alter it has no purpose.
This one is old, but a precursor. From dead material and spinning it around, they create live stuff, 100% identical to a god created virus:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1327340
Of course you can say "but viruses are not life". There are "tougher" experiments with DNA instead of simple RNA:
US patent application no. 200701 ...[text shortened]... are not life" and then "they have no conscience and can't distinguish Good from Evil"
13 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThat depends on you definition of life. I accept virus are in the limit behind life. But that article is from 1980. They have done it with more advanced stuff. Nothing more complicated then bacteria, though... But it's coherent with the current scientific theories, I think that's the point.
If I am not mistaken a vius simply alters a way a living organism operates. It has no other function that this so without a living oranism to alter it has no purpose.
No God necessary to explain reality and the universe after the Big Bang, at any point.
13 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou are mistaken.
If I am not mistaken a vius simply alters a way a living organism operates. It has no other function that this so without a living oranism to alter it has no purpose.
Please educate yourself further on Viral life.
And if you're trying to reduce a Viruses "purpose" (Which I find pretty hilarious that you are the subject matter on what is the life purpose for other living entities since you can't figure it out for yourself and rely on superstitious nonsense) to a symbiotic relationship... you do realize Humanity falls into that category right chief? And then you have to ask yourself if it was not for livestock and vegetables does Humanity have no other purpose for living?
PS-Viruses aren't always acting in negative capacities. In fact, the more you learn, which I'm guessing you won't, the more you have to question who's existence is more essential: Humanity's or Virus's?
Viruses existed before Humanity and will after we're gone.
Humanity could never exist without Viruses.
13 Sep 07
Ok kids, what is wrong with this definition found in Wiki concerning a virus?
"A virus is not a living thing. A virus is a small particle that can infect living organisms. Visuses do not belong to any of the six kingdoms. They are generally seen as being between living organisms and inanimate nature, rather than alive, since they do not show all characteristics of livng organisms. Viruses can only be found inside the cell wall or cell membrane. They are only a protein coat that holds a coiled string of nucleic acid.
Viruses are:
1) Non-cellular particles, causing many types of disease
2) Contain mucleic acid core DNA and RNA
3) Surrounded by a protective protein coat
4) They are acellular
5) They are totally dependent on other organisms.
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyA virus probably does not fit the most commonly accepted scientific definitions for the word life but definitions do not a fact make. Virus' fit some of the important commonly accepted requirements for calling something alive including:
A virus is not a living thing.
They copy themselves.
They evolve.
However if we accept them as life then we would be hard pressed to deny computer virus' that right.
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyFORGET virus. I only took them as a precursor example. Don't make your argument about them. You will win, I support you. Virus is not life. But you can say it's something inbetween life and non-life. I only took them as a coherence step. Virus are not the topic nor the cerne of discussion.
Ok kids, what is wrong with this definition found in Wiki concerning a virus?
"A virus is not a living thing. A virus is a small particle that can infect living organisms. Visuses do not belong to any of the six kingdoms. They are generally seen as being between living organisms and inanimate nature, rather than alive, since they do not show all charact ...[text shortened]... otective protein coat
4) They are acellular
5) They are totally dependent on other organisms.
13 Sep 07
It's absolutely fine to go the Virus tangent, and they still aren't going to win.
This is an excellent opportunity for two important things:
1) Wikipedia = Truth? No sir, that is something the internet-generation should probably get used to hearing.
2) Whether Viruses are "Living" in an ongoing debate. You will likely find many places that say it's one way or the other. It is very similar to the "Turing Test" that is the foundation for Artificial Intelligence studies.
As suggested, if the requirements for life are:
1 - Procreates
2 - Adapts to its surroundings
The Viruses pass with flying colors as having some of the most adaptive "species" (dare I say that!) on the planet.
If you are unable to accept the idea that viruses and bacteria are life forms, you may find yourself arguing against Humanity a priori!
Because, as previously stated, without bacteria and viruses, guess what? No Humans! Wow, what a concept. Next lets move onto Mitochondria. What do you think about them?
13 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by mdhallBacteria are alive. Viruses and mitochondria are not, at least according to typical definitions of the word. However it's really just an argument about a definition.
It's absolutely fine to go the Virus tangent, and they still aren't going to win.
This is an excellent opportunity for two important things:
1) Wikipedia = Truth? No sir, that is something the internet-generation should probably get used to hearing.
2) Whether Viruses are "Living" in an ongoing debate. You will likely find many places that say it's Wow, what a concept. Next lets move onto Mitochondria. What do you think about them?
13 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by mdhallI find it interesting that definitions about phenomenon that deals directly with our spirituality such as love and life are controversial on these boards and bitterly contested. It is almost as if one is contesting the very existence of God himself because such phenomenon are directly linked to God himself thus the existence of such phenomenon as life/love are also contested!!
It's absolutely fine to go the Virus tangent, and they still aren't going to win.
This is an excellent opportunity for two important things:
1) Wikipedia = Truth? No sir, that is something the internet-generation should probably get used to hearing.
2) Whether Viruses are "Living" in an ongoing debate. You will likely find many places that say it's Wow, what a concept. Next lets move onto Mitochondria. What do you think about them?
13 Sep 07
4 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDefine definition. Better yet, define sex!! I call these types of ramblings "the Clinton defense". 😛
Bacteria are alive. Viruses and mitochondria are not, at least according to typical definitions of the word. However it's really just an argument about a definition.