Slashdot Mirror
Researchers One Step Closer To Creating Life
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute are potentially one step closer to creating life. In an experiment they recently created enzymes that can replicate and evolve. 'It kind of blew me away,' said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. 'What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting.'"
What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting
I bet robots would fascinate these people.
Movie quote:
Male Character: "God creates dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs."
Female Character: "Dinosaurs eat man... woman inherits the earth."
Hah!
I'll finally be one step closer to creating my race of manbearpigs.
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
Apparently there are no fertile researchers at the Scripps Research Institute?
I have this feeling that in 100 years "mechanical" robots will be very passe.
meh
Researcher quoted as saying: "I was so close... I took her out to eat, paid for the movie, laid on the charm as heavy as I could, but it wasn't enough. However, I do feel that I'm one step closer to creating life."
the enzymes are being intelligently designed . . .
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's a bit nicer than the print article: Here
They are very clear in saying that what they have created is "NOT ALIVE."
This is very interesting work.
import system.cool.Sig;
A scientist enters a research laboratory.
Dr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The Intern does not respond.)
Dr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Intern: What do you mean "miss"?
Dr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Intern: We're closin' for lunch.
Dr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this enzyme what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very facility.
Intern: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue... What's,uh... What's wrong with it?
Dr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Intern: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Dr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead enzyme when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Intern: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable compounds, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful refraction!
Dr. Praline: The compounds don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Intern: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Dr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly enzyme! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...
(Intern hits the cage)
Intern: There, he moved!
Dr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!
Intern: I never!!
Dr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Intern: I never, never did anything...
Dr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes enzyme out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Dr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead enzyme.
Intern: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Dr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Intern: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
Dr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That enzyme is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged study.
Intern: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Dr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
Intern: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable creature, id'nit, squire? Lovely compounds!
Dr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that enzyme when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its slide in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Intern: Well, o'course it was nailed there!
This story has been up 8 minutes and I only see 5 posts of the same obvious joke, out of 13 posts. Come on /. get you asses in gear.
You mean some scientist out there almost got laid!? This IS one for the headlines! I just hope we'll be able to replicate the results with ease. God knows how many infeasible experiments big organizations have dangled in front of my low budget lab.
Help fight spam
The primary reason this sort of research is interesting is because it might give insight as to how abiogenesis occured. Most of the current hypotheses revolve around small sets of molecules becoming self-replicating and eventually forming cells with DNA and protein and all that good stuff. Moreover, even if this were similar to robots doing it on a small scale is independently interesting.
Since when is consciousness a prerequisite for life?
This doesn't end up like that scene in Alien Resurrection where Ripley finds all her failed clones.
the enzymes are being intelligently designed . . .
That's correct. Now the next step, once we are sure that these things are capable of evolving into life, is to invent a time machine and send them back in time to become the seeds for life on this planet. As documented here.
The enemies of Democracy are
Slashdot, you are letting me down!
I wonder what she'd think about this evolution.
Actually, this has been studied. Awareness appears to be more important then consciousness. The cat will be alive or dead irregardless of whether you are conscious or not.
"Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Easy? You must be new here.
And I was musing that her dream of man creating life is still unfulfilled two centuries later. Stories about magician animating the non-living are as old as man, but hers became iconic.
If you haven't already heard of Andrew Crosse and his experiments this is well worth a look. http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/mystical/AndrewCroise.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse The biochemical experiments conducted in 1837 produced insects which were later named acari or Acarus Crossii
Creating "life" in a laboratory hinges more on what our definition of life is than biology. That being said, scientists "creating life" using special equipment, special (non-random) ingredients, highly controlled conditions, etc would in no way prove life can self-generate. That's like saying anyone with access to gold and a diamond I can make a diamond ring.
..consciousness precedes matter. Just throwing matter together won't magically instill consciousness.
..understanding how the world actually works precedes posting a comment on /. Just throwing comments up on /. won't magically instill understanding of how the world actually works.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
"What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."
Sounds like my ex-wife.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
"Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it."
I once killed my glasses.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Nope, this does not serve as a proof that a deity is unnecessary, since the research is based on observations of life. In other words, even if this is successful, already existing life was a prerequisite.
You would have a proof that life can create life through observation and replication, but nothing more. You're still faced with the question of where the life that created life came from.
The really sad part about this story is somehow, somewhere, someone is going to throw a billion dollars at this research if they promise to focus on the penis first.
At least that's what my spam horoscope told me....
The Tom Cruise connection to the UFO nuts and the bible belt.
Quack, quack.
Nothing evolves like evolution!
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Unless you can point to any evidence, or even a credible sounding theory, which would back up the claim, I can pretty confidently dismiss it. I'm not assuming anything, other than that an unqualified assertion, of such a controversial nature, should be backed up by something.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
TFA is just more 'create life' hype to get research funding dollars.
From the article: "Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA
enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins
or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
"Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited
conditions of a laboratory. More significantly, the scientists
then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some
of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in
what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."
Not even sure from TFA what the "breakthrough" is supposed to
be...'self-replicating RNA' or 'immortalized RNA?' UC Santa
Cruz researchers worked
out the structure of such a molecule two years ago.
This would be slightly more impressive if the researchers could claim
that their immortal RNA was capable of de novo synthesis
but the only claim they make is that no 'proteins' or 'cellular
components' are required for replication from their "raw material"
which is apparently some type of RNA.
Not entirely. According to the paper, they were in part designed by in vitro evolution, an "unintelligent" design method that makes use of random mutation and selection to derive better enzymes. The power of "unintelligent" design mechanisms (of which evolution is one) is that they do not require that the specific solution to a design problem be known in advance.
"skunkopotamus"
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Eugenics and Oncology ride in the same wagon for long stretches of the way
and this has been pioneered by the eugenics field first by 'tainting' tetanus
vaccine with progesterone and thus sensibilizing the immune system to
react to releases of progesterone (a hormone absolutely needed for achieving and
maintaing pregnancy).
I can only imagine that this will be used to target all kinds of key cells in
the human body.
Come on, the best chance of us coming up with artificial life is self-replicating robots. Artificial plants, essentially. Don't know why we'd want those around unless we plan to harvest them or their husks for some use like we do with wheat and hemp and so forth, but it'd surely be staggeringly interesting.
And we could get there without magical molecular biology tricks: just engineer the parts required of an universal constructor, then re-engineer those so that they can be built by one. Boosh! Well-defined and devoid of "and then it's alliiiiiivvvve!!!!" type sturm und drang.
Some science major gets a passing grade in this classand figures he's going to get lucky with an actual woman.
They need to teach the difference between theoretical science and practical engineering.
Have gnu, will travel.
They should combine this research conference with "The Singularity" conference and The Darwin Awards. It's all heading the same direction.
Table-ized A.I.
What if I'm really just an amoeba dreaming about being a human and I'm going to wake up and find that I'm living in a puddle of water and about to be shat on by a passing armadillo?!
OMG SOMEBODY HELP ME I MUST NOT WAKE UP!!@!
I hate printers.
I bet the researchers were at least semi-conscious while doing their experiments. Coincidence?
TFA article states: "DNA is the software of life..." which
is total crap. If they insist on using a computer analogy, they
could say 'DNA is the information storage of life' and the 'gene
expression mechanism is the software.' Recent advances in epigenetics
have shown that gene expression is much more complex than previously
thought. To use the computer analogy, there's 'memory' chips and there's 'logic' chips
and they are not the same thing.
The ultimate proof of not needing a deity or special substance for life (or mind too) would be able to construct it out of raw ingredients. I 99% believe this possible.
If we assume
then I don't think anyone denies that life could arise without God. Even a (very unlikely) event of chance would do; there's no need for evolution, even. The real question isn't in which ways life can come about, but which way it actually happened.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
What about grass? What about unconscious people?
I think your average person is content to admit that they don't understand the universe and everything in it. Religious or not.
Atheism is something of a loaded term since people seem to want to equate it with not only not believing in a god, but loudly denying the possibility of one.
What you replied to was a clear troll (or maybe Richard Dawkins), and since you mention "keeping score", please don't add that troll to the atheist side.
IMHO nothing can either prove or disprove the existence of God, at least nothing in the physical world. If god created everything, then he must by definition not be part of it because creation is an action and in order for an action to occur there must be two things A) the thing doing the action and B) the thing being acted on.
here is something to ponder for those of you who only believe the the physical world: Close your eyes, and twiddle your thumbs, now think what told your tumbs to twiddle? your brain right? yes, but what told your brain to tell your thumbs to twiddle? this is what i would call god. i am god.
God wants pizza
1. Get woman
2. Sleep with woman
3. ????
4. Create life
Humans are flawed. Any interpretation of God by humans is therefore flawed. The problem is that there are loud (but not necessarily large) groups of people who don't seem to understand this.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I was disappointed you equated Richard Dawkins and a troll. It seems to me that most of the problems currently on this earth are due to a) the Muslims, b) the Jews and c) the Christians.
Fair play to anybody who stands up and says "Fuck off, God doesn't exist, what are you fighting about !". So much energy and life wasted on something whose whole purpose was to promote peace (allegedly).
As a side note, it's vaguely interesting that the spellchecker in firefox complains about not using capital first letters for christians and muslims, but misunderstands jews completely.
"In my experience so far, atheists are more dogmatic, more aggressive and less rational than the average person of religion."
Perhaps you have experienced dickheads so lets take a look at a famous Atheist. Dawkins points out ALL religious people are also Atheists, they just went one god too far. ie: They don't belive in Thor, the FSM, etc, but they do belive in an alpha male in the sky using only blind faith as evidence.
"If life were replicated in a test tube would that disprove the existence of God? Please explain how, as I don't see any logical path of reasoning that leads to that conclusion."
No but it certainly pins the tail on the creationists donkeys. Dawkins entire point is that religion promotes "unthinking as a virtue" and that this permeates into politics and the rest of society. He does not claim he can prove god doesn't exist he claims that there is no evidence and therefore the RATIONAL course of action is to assume he doesn't.
Dawkins has the same fears as Sagan did, and yeah, he's more agressive about it. I suggest you read Dawkins and Sagan's books and think about what they are saying, after all "doubting Thomas" was Jesus' favorite deciple.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Atheism promotes this just as much as religion. Every single atheist I have ever spoken to (hyperbole aside) has had the same mental block as every religious fanatic I have ever spoken to. They can't entertain ideas they don't support. It is truly dogmatic. However, a distinction must be made between "religion" and a belief in God. A belief in the existence of a higher power, whether it is the alpha male, or a mathematical equation or whatever, does not automatically imply religion. Let the flames begin.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
I think that part of point with their work was in showing the rate of reproduction of these RNA molecules. I don't remember the exact numbers, and I'm not just going to make them up, but over a four day period the rate of replication was extremely high: a single molecule replicates to beyond trillions, at least.
The idea is that over the vast timespans posited by evolution, this rapid process could well have one instance where life could evolve.
Just having some fun. I think he's a man who makes up for his lack of tact with strong convictions, or maybe the other way around. :)
FWIW, I think Sagan did a better job educating people about science's role in truth than Dawkins has. Not that Dawkins himself with disagree; they're big shoes to fill.
But really I just didn't like The Selfish Gene :P
Check this out. You can read the whole book online for free. www.creationscience.com Even if the hydroplate theory isn't correct, it's very interesting. Beyond that, there's so much in the book that's really hard to dismiss easily. If you're intellectually honest, this is worth your while. Enjoy!
* "would disagree"
"They can't entertain ideas they don't support. It is truly dogmatic."
Emmm no, they can't entertain assertions that there is no evidence for, and yes that is a kind of "dogma" if you want to be a pedant.
"A belief in the existence of a higher power, whether it is the alpha male, or a mathematical equation or whatever, does not automatically imply religion."
It automatically implies faith, not BLIND faith. All faith is not equal, the single "leap of faith" that science requires of it's practioners is that the "real world" exists. I can demonstrate mathematical equations exist in the "real world", I cannot demonstrate an alpha male in the sky exists and neither can anyone else - see the difference - EVIDENCE.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I am a science graduate and I appreciate science in many forms but when it comes to genetic issues or giving artificial life I think its better to leave things as they are. Bcoz change in this major process will not help us in anyway but will create more panic.
here is something to ponder for those of you who only believe the the physical world: Close your eyes, and twiddle your thumbs, now think what told your tumbs to twiddle? your brain right? yes, but what told your brain to tell your thumbs to twiddle? this is what i would call god. i am god.
I take it then that you subscribe to the notion that "you" exist as separate to your body?
If so, why does your behaviour / personality change when you have a stroke / brain damage?
In answer to your question - why does something else need to tell your brain to twiddle your thumbs? Why cannot the buck stop with the brain?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
"He does not claim he can prove god doesn't exist he claims that there is no evidence and therefore the RATIONAL course of action is to assume he doesn't."
In the same way that you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound, therefore we must assume it doesn't?
That is an example of the petty, shallow and poorly thought out propositions Dawkins makes. I am a Muslim. I enjoy discussing religion with Christians, Jews, atheists etc, but listening to Dawkins is painful. He is to theology what Darl McBride is to business; a dimwit with too much backing.
P.S., I've read many of the works of both Dawkins and Sagan.
I hate printers.
Speaking as a Muslim, I don't think that anything in science, including the Big Bang, precludes God's existence, nor does God's existence preclude anything in science. This is the mainstream view among Muslims, don't think that the cherry picked idiots that Fox chooses to interview represent us.
I hate printers.
..consciousness precedes matter. Just throwing matter together won't magically instill consciousness.
Come on now. If consciousness preceded matter, what would have been conscious? Oh, I suppose you can say only certain assemblies of matter attract consciousness out of (the aether / wherever it is), but without matter there is nothing to BE conscious-- consciousness would be only a potential. There is no way we can say it is "received" by matter vs created from certain interactions of matter, IMO.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
and defecates into the machine
Nope, this does not serve as a proof that a deity is unnecessary, since the research is based on observations of life. In other words, even if this is successful, already existing life was a prerequisite.
Regardless, unless there's an angle I'm missing here, man creating true life from scratch... real, living creatures from nothing... wouldn't that disprove the existence of God according to scriptures? Because according to the ones I read, only the God of the Bible can create life. If some scientist actually managed to create real life, then it seems to me that would prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't exist.
Which is why I don't believe it'll ever happen. Any other Biblical scholars/philosophers, if you see a hole in this argument, by all means, throw it out there.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?"
That bit of twisted logic is known as the "god of the gaps". Not knowing the answer to everything is not evidence that there exists "a higher power" that does.
"Why is the belief in a higher power any more or less "religious" than the belief in a big bang?"
Science does not prove anything, it provides the best explaination for observations. The observable expansion of the visable universe is EVIDENCE to support the big bang. Science does not claim that god didn't light the fuse, it claims there is no EVIDENCE of a fuse. There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So everything humans do or interpret is flawed because humans are flawed? That's a logical fallacy. There are plenty of mathematical systems that have been constructed that have been proved fundamentally correct, are they some how invalidated because humans are impure vessels?
Come to think of it, if there is a God and he created humans with flaws, is he not flawed himself? Otherwise they are intentional characteristics and are not flaws but "intelligent design".
Personally I'm agnostic.
"P.S., I've read many of the works of both Dawkins and Sagan."
/sarcasm
And yet you missed the point, science does not prove anything nor does it claim certainty.
"you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound"
There is evidence that a tree falling over makes a sound, ie: it can be observed. The only leap of faith required to belive a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is listening is that the real world continues to exist when nobody is watching it. In other words sticking ones head in the sand and pretending the real world does not exist will not save ones arse no matter how stong their faith is.
"[Dawkins is] a dimwit with too much backing."
Yea right, and an over rated zen riddle about trees is EVIDENCE for that.
"I am a Muslim."
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"There, God, was your mistake -- making man in your own image: fallible."
-- Bertrand Russell
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The big bang theory is not faith chief, it a hypothesis that successfully explains a large body of evidence (ie. a theory). As for where the object came from to begin with - nobody knows. And this is not a show stopper for science. Nobody adopts unquestionable dogmas, nobody says "we don't know hence god did it q.e.d.", its just becomes an interesting question to try to answer and as evidence is gathered more hypotheses will be put forward until there is enough evidence to form a consensus. There are some hypotheses formed already but there is not enough evidence to make any kind of reasonable judgement just yet.
What I don't get is how you can compare this to a belief in a higher power?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Agreed 100%. I am not Muslim, but I find the Creation as told in the Old Testament and the Big Bang Theory to be in (almost) total agreement. Here is Asimov's take on how it happened:
http://www.sumware.com/creation.html
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
In the same way that you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound, therefore we must assume it doesn't?
I think you're focusing too much on the negative assumption. I can say with certainty that a tree falling while being observed makes a sound. I can determine that this sound is from vibrations, and even pinpoint the source of the vibrations and replicate them.
To take this a bit farther, I can come visit the tree after wards and witness the effects of it having fallen. Basically I have no reason to believe it didn't make a sound since there is evidence to the contrary. To believe the tree didn't make a sound would be a lot more akin to believing in a higher power. Except for the evidence to the contrary, of course.
The question itself is often taken out of context. One is referring to the perceived universe and the other to the real thing.
But really - why focus on god? Aren't the meaningful effects of religion what people choose to do with them? Using your religion as a basis to harm people is bad, but using it as a basis to help people is probably good. Why? The end result. If you're a good person, I commend whatever inspired you to be as such.
Signed,
The non thinking Atheist.
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
life "ab initio". Even if a group managed to reproduce an entire human being "ab initio" from a protein replicator and an genetic map, this still does not count. We are not even close to understand why DNA/RNA/proteins act they way they do. This can be liken to someone dumping all the chips/resistors/capactiors for a modern PC with a schematic on how to connect it together to form a living PC (hint: the used to be called Heath Kits). Does that individual who assemble the CPU/GPU/memroy/rom capacitors, etc to form a working PC really understand how the central CPU is designed? F**k no. Or how a modern GPU works or is assembled or the material properties why it works? F**K no. I'll bet most Heath Kitt enthusiast couldn't even described dI/dt for a simple inductors, capacitor and resistor to a AC line. Please.
The statement that consciousness precedes matter is a philosophical statement. It precludes scientific debate because philosophical reasoning is of a different kind than scientific reasoning. In making your statement you already postulate the epistemological position that nature exists and is objectively knowable. In the framework of scientific debate you are indeed right to ask these questions, but you have to realize that science itself exists within a specific philosophical framework; one which is widely accepted, but not self-evident.
Well, some possible names for such a thing would be "the soul" or "God", but mentioning such things is kind of taboo on slashdot. I do realize the importance of reasoned arguments, but I believe that too many people dismiss philosophy outright, entirely ignoring that science itself is based on philosophical premises. Your own argument makes certain implicit philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world, matter, and consciousness.
"The non thinking Atheist"
I like it! Even though I defend Dawkins I'm not in total agreement, I think religion, politics, etc, focus and direct an existing and very deep "unthinking is a virtue" philosophy that EVERYONE uses just to get out of bed in the morning.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
We're not a single step closer to creating life. Self-replicating RNA was already created in the lab somewhere in 2001 or possibly even earlier than that:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5520/1319
The only new thing about this research, is that they've proven that self-replicating RNA actually evolves, which is a major step as well, but it doesn't bring us any closer to creating life. Also note that the biggest question of all, is how those RNA molecules would be formed from the primordial soup; so far we've only been able to manufacture them in the lab.
0x or or snor perron?!
No, scientists have a theory, based on evidence, that there was a big bang. One tiny shred of (verifiable) contradictory evidence, and the big bang would be disproven.
Where did the infinitely massive object come from? Does your faith in science tell you that it was just always there?
No, the only scientific answer to your question is, "We don't know." And that is the difference between science and religion.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Flamebait ?
I don't see anything deliberately contentious in any of what I said. Probably some one in group a), b) or c) lashing out with no thought (as is their wont).
If this isn't something that says get prepared now I don't know what is.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
You know the part where they put some black gunk in a canister, and then someone comes to the fridge and opens it up thinking its some sort of soup, and the stuff latches unto his face, and then you see Venom swinging from the roof tops.......wait, I might have to dust off my spiderman outfit.
To add to this, if you are capable of rational thinking outside of your absolute beliefs... It is just as crazy to think that a "God" has always been there as it is to think that the "Universe" has always been there. Both are ridiculous. Arguing which is true is a practice in madness. Sometimes the best answer to a question is "I don't know"
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
It's really not meant to be taken quite so.. literally I guess works. It's basically meant to express the notion that "one cannot prove ones interpretation of God is correct, so please let me have my interpretation and I'll let you have yours".
Also, I was originally raised Christian, switched to Atheism once I got away from my father, but lately I think I've begun to find possible merit in Deism.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
What liberties did this play take with her original story? I don't recall the idea of man-made life being a "dream" of hers at all...quite the opposite.
The answer to your first question is yes
the second question is obvious, your communication device (you're brain/body) is broken therefore the message is screwed up
And the buck cannot stop with the brain because every action has to have a reaction (and vice versa). I'm surprised however that no-one told me this in answer to my question "Who told my brain to tell my thumbs to move? You did!" This is a valid answer but then you trace it back to what told me to tell you to tell your brain etc... you see that this eventually has to trace back to something that just happened spontaneously, however spontaneous action is not something that jives well with the laws of the physical universe, this is why i say that somewhere along the line something (if you want to call it metaphysical) but something like a god perhaps had to either make the first move (outside the laws of our universe) or is perhaps still making moves. i'm guessing the latter
But life that doesn't organise itself into more complex structures, organisms, isn't very interesting. Well, it IS very interesting for a biotech scientist, but not quite as interesting as the kind of life that does, the life that we see around us and marvel at.
So what they've done in the lab here doesn't solve all the mysteries of life. They haven't figured out all the conditions to create complex life as we see around us. Also, they started out with RNA, and managed to get it to multiply and evolve somewhat, but they haven't figured out how RNA etc. was formed from soup or whatever to begin with.
assignment != equality != identity
The statement that consciousness precedes matter is a philosophical statement. It precludes scientific debate because philosophical reasoning is of a different kind than scientific reasoning.
But even in philosophic, not scientific, debate, it is not acceptable to simply make an assertion without some justification. I'm hardly a philosopher, but most of the books I have read on the topic are filled with arguments and reasoning behind the conclusions the philosopher has reached. The statement, "consciousness precedes matter" is hardly self-evident, so requires something to back it up.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
God said "Start with your own dirt."
But experiments like this show that we can start with simpler and simpler types of dirt. We're nearly at the point were we only need a god (of any kind) to make hydrogen and the rest takes care of itself - and the Large Hadron Collider guys are going to show we don't even need god for that! The areas of ignorance where god can remain are, thankfully, getting smaller and smaller.
Atheism is something of a loaded term since people seem to want to equate it with not only not believing in a god, but loudly denying the possibility of one.
Probably because we're trying to make a meaningful distinction between atheism and agnosticism.
The enemies of Democracy are
Because science takes evidence and builds a theory that supports the evidence.
The more evidence supporting the theory, the more likely it is true.
Science is never 100% certain. Best you can get is 99.9999_.
Based on current observable facts about the universe the big bang is extremely likely.
For example-- all the observed physical matter in the universe is expanding outwards.
Now- run that backwards.
A:at some time in the past, all the matter in the universe was at the same point.
B:at some time in the past, all the matter in the universe was created by a god at the same point.
C:at some time in the past, all the matter in the universe was created by a god at the different points, with velocities and vectors to give the impression that it all came from some point.
B and C involve something that can't be measured or proven. C is more obvious but B&C are equally likely.
Science doesn't say "B" or "C" is unprovable- just that they are not science.
Now- add the radiation evidence and you get "Time "A" had a big explosion- the echos of which can still be measured.
Religious people are hostile to science because it contradicts some of their religious tales which are clearly impossible and unsupported by evidence.
The better policy would be for them to say, "Science finds truth- God wants us to know truth- The fact that the universe started with a big bang 16 to 20 billion years ago does not violate god's statement that eating kumquats on sundays is immoral".
Religion should confine itself to matters of morality- and leave the science to hard physical facts and conclusions drawn from those facts.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Our typical definition of life is arbitrary.
Just take a look at viruses. They're generally so simple as to be basically a glitch in other "living" things, yet some don't classify them as life, some do. And for some reason we draw a distinction that something has to be "alive" for a certain period of time, or for a certain number of generations.
To me, attempting to classify something as alive or not is a pretty pointless endeavor, and it's not all that interesting to say that one thing is alive while another isn't.
By certain definitions, religions or ideologies are just as alive as a virus. All of the religions that survive contain imperatives that each generation of believers pass the belief to their descendants, or to others, , preferably both including those imperatives. The cycle then repeats itself ad infinitum. Just as a virus passes its DNA from one host to the next. The ideology has books or writings, the virus has DNA. From an abstract perspective, it's hard to tell the difference. Judaism has such strong imperatives to raise your children as Jewish that they're practically a race. Christianity has such strong imperatives to proselytize, that some Christians devote their entire lives to mission work. It's these things that make religions powerful. Try and think of a religion or ideology that doesn't contain imperatives to replicate. It's rather difficult, because without them, they simply go extinct.
It's kind of like the fascinating perspective induced when someone says, "A chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.". When you look at it like that, the definition of life blurs a bit.
Classifying only things that move around and procreate is a pretty restrictive definition that is potentially holding back our reasoning.
The only thing that they all have in common is persistent replication without outside guidance. Put like that, life isn't a very interesting phenomenon.
Question everything
Atheism is NOT a religion, and it has no dogma. Atheism simply refers to people who do NOT believe in any deities. There are many flavors of atheism, and some could be considered religious with dogma, like Raelians or Objectivists, but Atheism itself makes no claims, it's simply a response TO a claim.
Learn something new.
The universe is less than 14 billion years old, not 16 to 20 billion.
Learn something new.
riiiiight, because believing someone is listening to your prayers is rational. hey by the way, why won't god heal amputees?
As a theist (but not a Muslim) let me give one answer. I make no claim that it is necessarily the only, best, or definitive one. And I promise not to break your legs if you disagree. :)
What made you pick that particular god, why are you an Athiest when it comes to (say) the Hindu gods?
First of all, I have been given evidence that demonstrates to my satisfaction that God, as described in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Is. Much of that evidence is not provable using the scientific method and would not satisfy most people who have not already been granted Faith (also as defined by the Jewish and Christian Scriptures). But I have found it both convincing and sufficient.
Second, although I have been exposed to other religious traditions to some small extent, and I have found things to admire in many of them, I have not found any compelling reason in any of these to question what I already believe to be true, including my belief (shared by Jews and Muslims) that God is One. It certainly is possible that had I been raised in the Hindu tradition, I would believe, to at least some degree, as do Hindus. However, I wasn't.
Finally, I represent somewhat of a minority view even among Christians, in that I believe that God is Sovereign. He does as He wishes, and owes us no explanation whatsoever. Furthermore, much of the explanation He does offer to us is accessible only to those who already believe Him . . those who have repented (turned away) from their sins and believed that Jesus Christ is Lord, that He was sent by the Father to die for the sins of all who believe, and that He rose from the dead.
I realize this sounds ridiculous to those who do not believe it. But to those who do, obviously, it is not. It is not worth my time nor yours to try to argue that God can be found through Science. He can and frequently does reveal Himself in this manner, but, more frequently, He does not. I don't know why. If I ever meet Him (if I am among those whom He chose to redeem, something I frankly do not know), I will ask Him.
What I do know is that if you do wish to know God, and seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. It might be through science, or any number of other ways. At some point in your life, you might come to find that whatever you do believe isn't enough. Perhaps at the end of a career, or a relationship, or a stage in your life, or maybe even at the end of life itself. You might find that science and reason, while immensely valuable, do not have all the answers you need at that point. At that time, I hope you will remember to seek Him. I can't prove that He is there, but you can't prove, or know with certainty, that He isn't. You lose absolutely nothing by keeping an open mind and an open heart, and you might instead gain more than you can possibly imagine now.
Nonaggression works!
Science does not prove anything, it provides the best explaination for observations. The observable expansion of the visable universe is EVIDENCE to support the big bang. Science does not claim that god didn't light the fuse, it claims there is no EVIDENCE of a fuse. There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
What is interesting about cosmology is that it uniquely deals with the issue of origin as compared to other areas of science. So while some theists think that the big bang is an attack on the notion that God exists, there are other thinkers that believe that the big bang model helps the theist case. For example, the standard big bang model points to a time in the finite past where not only matter and energy, but also space and time came into existence out of nothing. Here's an interesting article regarding this from a theist perspective.
The key flaw in your statement is that the entire universe has operated as it does now from the beginning. There is no evidence for this because you cannot go back to the beginning. You must assume that this is true. Creationist assume God created it and set it all into motion. Atheists believe a quantum fluxuation or something like that occurred to bring all of this universe into existence from nothing. Now if that is not faith (religion) I don't know what is.
Strictly speaking they are not creating anything, but contructing it. Creation means "bringing into existence" from nothing; not something withing the boundaries of science, where preservation of energy, mass and what have you are the reality. Constructing a living entity, or one that is nearly living is still an impressive feat and an important step closer to discovering what life is.
Because that is one other thing we don't actually know; we know a lot of living organisms, and a lot of dead things, and they seem to be fundamentally different in some way, but we don't quite know where the boundary goes.
So what? They've only been working on this for half a century. It took ten millenia to get a handle on astronomy. Saying that this is unimportant because it doesn't give all the answers is like saying that Kepler and Newton's work was unimportant.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Not at all.
Athiests believe all kinds of different things. Most athiests are not all scientists. Many scientists are not athiests.
A lot of them don't think or care about the beginning of the universe at all.
On the minus side there is no big invisible guy to punish them if they do evil, scummy things.
On the plus side, there is no big invisible guy to reward or forgive them if they do evil, scummy things.
---
Science is based on facts and the scientific method. Either everyone can observe the facts and repeat your observations or it is not science.
Your theories should be testable- your hypothesis do not have to be.
Until someone provides some evidence that the rules changed, then the assumption is that the rules have been the same.
Science doesn't include "anything could have been true" in every theory. Of course... ANYTHING could have been true- our current day reality for the last 10,000 years could be a black swan event. But those conditions are pretty pointless for concluding anything.
And on the religious and scientific side, given "anything could have been true", there is no way to prove Last Tuesdayism is not a valid faith.
So your entire point is pointless.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I have a very interesting article as well on the exact same topic: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Thanks... been a while since I really cared about this issue...
I just read the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and as you say, multiple current theories indicate 13.6 to 13.8 billion years.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
the second question is obvious, your communication device (you're brain/body) is broken therefore the message is screwed up
This may seem logical - but what happens when a communication device breaks down? Noise is generally introduced, the communication channel slows down, there are failures in communication - however patients with certain kinds of brain damage and stokes suffer specific changes in their behaviour while others are unaffected! (A common and disturbing one is the groping of relatives!). This can only be explained if the brain is the origin of those desires / actions. If the brain was a set of controls "you" utilised to get your "true" personality across you would cease to use / adapt the use of the brain and re-learn how to master those controls with the added noise. If you accept that state of the brain can totally impact on your personality then you are really saying that "you" are your brain!
And the buck cannot stop with the brain because every action has to have a reaction (and vice versa). I'm surprised however that no-one told me this in answer to my question "Who told my brain to tell my thumbs to move? You did!" This is a valid answer but then you trace it back to what told me to tell you to tell your brain etc... you see that this eventually has to trace back to something that just happened spontaneously, however spontaneous action is not something that jives well with the laws of the physical universe, this is why i say that somewhere along the line something (if you want to call it metaphysical) but something like a god perhaps had to either make the first move (outside the laws of our universe) or is perhaps still making moves. i'm guessing the latter
You say that every action has to have a reaction and vice versa but its your idea that breaks this - having an causally independent "you" that generates actions breaks the laws of physics. You explain this away but introducing a god - but I think it would be just as fair to say "you don't know". You are your brain, and you are following the laws of physics because you are fundamentally an (albeit very complex) input to output converter. Do you really think that you do anything spontaneously? How could one do anything spontaneously in a causal universe! Most of all why is it so important to be able to do things spontaneously that one would introduce illogical concepts to make it possible?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Everything you say here does make sense, however i can think of alternate explanations as well, and you are correct I don't really know. i say however that it takes just as much "belief" and "faith" to believe in a god like being as it does to be an athiest. It's just another choice that we must make because we could spend the rest of our lives pondering the question.
perhaps it is the case that for whatever reason evolution has favored those who do believe in a god. maybe it's becuase they can more successfully get on with their lives and the more important task of reproduction
Getting back to the subject of this story though, i do believe that this is in fact life. i think the only logical next step is to have various teams of scientists come up with their own self-replicating RNA and have them fight , then we can all start placing bets on which strands will win!
i say however that it takes just as much "belief" and "faith" to believe in a god like being as it does to be an athiest. It's just another choice that we must make because we could spend the rest of our lives pondering the question.
People say this often but I have never understood it. Perhaps you can explain it to me. To me atheism is the "default" position - it is a state of not knowing and taking no assumptions. Imagine being born - do you come out with beliefs about higher powers? Or is one born an atheist? (one might be tempted to say people are born agnostics - but do babies really believe there is a 50/50 chance of a higher power? - I would sooner think it doesn't cross their minds)
God is a very popular hypothesis that seeks to explain a large number of "big" questions - however to me it has never been coupled with any direct supporting evidence, rather evidence is posed in a "negative" form - that is evidence is of the form "no competing explanations exist". This is evidenced by the retreating claims of all religions as science has answered questions that have previously been in the religious domain.
So to me the atheist position of no evidence for god = no belief in god is the "faithless" one. People often argue that god cannot be disproved, but this again is not reason to believe in a god - an infinite number of things cannot be disproved - so we nominally do not believe in them until evidence accumulates to support that hypothesis.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
There are lots of things you can believe in without evidence, such unicorns and fairies, why is a belief in fairies any more or less rational than a belief in "a higher power"?
There is evidence that unicorns exist; they're oryxes that have lost a horn.
...will the life we create in the laboratory believe in us?
"No good deed goes unpunished"
I do agree with you but I just wanted to point out that there are other ways to look at this. For example, you say:
But even in philosophic, not scientific, debate, it is not acceptable to simply make an assertion without some justification.
But there are plenty of philosophers who made seemingly blanket statements like this. A statement might not be meant to be taken dogmatically but to initiate debate (e.g. let's look at possible consequences if we accept such a statement). I'm not saying that this is the intention of the original poster, just that it's a possible way to raise a point. Of course, statements like these are always interpreted in a certain context, which we do not have here.
This atheist doesn't believe anything of the sort. I don't know what happens at the very earliest stages of the Big Bang, and I'm not even certain that 'before' is a well-defined direction in spacetime in that region. I simply don't have the necessary quantum theory of gravity to describe such events. But I'm not about to (for example) invent an extra-universal intelligence to fill in this gap in my knowledge, much less start telling people that said extra-universal intelligence has strongly held opinions that coincidentally happen to match my own on who can marry who.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Interesting. You don't claim that God exists - instead you claim that the question 'Does God exist' is ill-posed?
Fair enough - and I'd agree with you, for such a definition of 'God' - but you're probably heretical to most Western religions. The Christians I've known would generally claim that God definitely does exist.
Anyway, if God is transcendent then that only means he is not a solution of a nonzero polynomial with rational coefficients. Doesn't mean he can't be said to exist or not exist :-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The tone of your comment is perfectly in line with the witty observation of the GP:
*) gross misrepresentations of a religion (difference from atheists in "one god" unit)
*) "alpha male in the sky", "donkeys"
Atheists always represent religion as contrary to rationalism conveniently forgetting that the scope and domain of religious belief does not overlap the domain of science.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"you cannot *prove* that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it doesn't make a sound"
Yes, you can. Put a record camera there and bam. Done. You both a mixing science methodology and general philosophy on the same bowl. The question quoted above is not to be take by the letter.
-- dnl