ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Origins of Life...

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Aug. 17 2005, 11:40 am

With the debate raging over evolution, perhaps much of the disagreement is based on varying concepts of evolution, creation, etc. Here's a more fundamental question.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, I ain't sinless, but I DID cast the first vote. I went for Supernatural Creation, because I believe the design of living things is far beyond our abilities, hence relative to man the one who created life is Supernatural.

No need to attack others here, we're just having an intelligent debate.

EnglishTrekkie

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 318

Report this Aug. 17 2005, 1:55 pm

1. there was nothing
2. there was a bang
3. somone(thing) made the biggest mistake of there never ending life

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Aug. 17 2005, 4:59 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 16 2005, 9:40 am)
With the debate raging over evolution, perhaps much of the disagreement is based on varying concepts of evolution, creation, etc. Here's a more fundamental question.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, I ain't sinless, but I DID cast the first vote. I went for Supernatural Creation, because I believe the design of living things is far beyond our abilities, hence relative to man the one who created life is Supernatural.

No need to attack others here, we're just having an intelligent debate.

Zef you are a fiend. Just when I was hoping that we put this silly debate to bed you find a way to continue it.

Face it the appeal to a supernatural creation is equal to those that say angels make the planets obrit the sun or that the earth is flat.

As for creating life, we human have already created artificial organism in the lab, and alter other to do things like Goat making silk in their milk to Bacteria manufacturing Insulin...

All Creation design is , is an attempt to sneak the issue of regilion into public schools.

We already have had the debate and the polls and evolution has Won here at Trek ville. Let sleeping dogs lie..

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Aug. 17 2005, 9:21 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Aug. 17 2005, 1:59 pm)
Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 16 2005, 9:40 am)
With the debate raging over evolution, perhaps much of the disagreement is based on varying concepts of evolution, creation, etc. Here's a more fundamental question.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, I ain't sinless, but I DID cast the first vote. I went for Supernatural Creation, because I believe the design of living things is far beyond our abilities, hence relative to man the one who created life is Supernatural.

No need to attack others here, we're just having an intelligent debate.

Zef you are a fiend. Just when I was hoping that we put this silly debate to bed you find a way to continue it.

Face it the appeal to a supernatural creation is equal to those that say angels make the planets obrit the sun or that the earth is flat.

As for creating life, we human have already created artificial organism in the lab, and alter other to do things like Goat making silk in their milk to Bacteria manufacturing Insulin...

All Creation design is , is an attempt to sneak the issue of regilion into public schools.

We already have had the debate and the polls and evolution has Won here at Trek ville. Let sleeping dogs lie..

Creating artificial life in the lab would be earth-shaking news!

Anyway, you did answer the question, fiendish though it was!
Thanks.

TheUniqueDrone

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 21

Report this Aug. 17 2005, 11:02 pm

Well, we haven't created life in the lab, merely adapted existing lifeforms to serve our purposes. However, Creationism, and in the guise of Intelligent Design (more like Fundamentalists' Designs), states that lifeforms, in their present forms, were created by a creator. This can be dispelled by the mutation exhibited by bacteria as they reproduce, producing 'super-bugs', and through the domestication of wild animals to tame animals, such as the evolution of wolves to dogs.

  Creationism is philosophy and belief, not science. The Bible is a book that can teach people about morals and ethics, guidelines to live our lives. It doesn't set out our scientific laws, and it is not a scientific text. By contrast, Evolution is not the same theory it was at its inception, it too evolved to its present form as it attempted to fit observations made by scientists, and there will be changes to it as in the future, as it attempts to fill the gaps in its laws.
 
  There are imperfections in the theory of Evolution, but it is the process of constant adaptation to fill the anomalies in its laws that are found through observations of nature that makes it a scientific theory, whereas Creationism is the opposite, as it attempts to adapt the observations themselves to suit the theory, therefore it is unscientific whereas Evolution is scientific.

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Aug. 18 2005, 7:19 am

Quote (TheUniqueDrone @ Aug. 17 2005, 8:02 pm)
Well, we haven't created life in the lab, merely adapted existing lifeforms to serve our purposes. However, Creationism, and in the guise of Intelligent Design (more like Fundamentalists' Designs), states that lifeforms, in their present forms, were created by a creator. This can be dispelled by the mutation exhibited by bacteria as they reproduce, producing 'super-bugs', and through the domestication of wild animals to tame animals, such as the evolution of wolves to dogs.

  Creationism is philosophy and belief, not science. The Bible is a book that can teach people about morals and ethics, guidelines to live our lives. It doesn't set out our scientific laws, and it is not a scientific text. By contrast, Evolution is not the same theory it was at its inception, it too evolved to its present form as it attempted to fit observations made by scientists, and there will be changes to it as in the future, as it attempts to fill the gaps in its laws.
 
  There are imperfections in the theory of Evolution, but it is the process of constant adaptation to fill the anomalies in its laws that are found through observations of nature that makes it a scientific theory, whereas Creationism is the opposite, as it attempts to adapt the observations themselves to suit the theory, therefore it is unscientific whereas Evolution is scientific.

Arghh! Here I go again.

Creationism is a specific religious dogma invented by the so-called 'evangelical' religious leaders. Intelligent design is not. They're not the same thing, anymore than Sting and Michael Buble are the same just because they're both singers.

Intelligent design does NOT say that present lifeforms were created as is. That is just stupid.

Life comes only from preexisting life. Every scientific experiment since Pasteur has produced the same result. We see evidence of variation and adaptation all around us: plants produce bigger fruit, moths vary their colouring, bacteria adapt to antibiotics. That is not the same thing as 'Evolution' in the Darwinian sense.

We NEVER see new types of life arising spontaneously. We NEVER see sea birds developing gills to adapt to the water as Darwinian evolution suggests should happen.

The changes to evolution have not addressed its fundamental weakness: Life comes only from preexisting life.  :logical:

Tholian_Cmdr_Sharax

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 319

Report this Aug. 18 2005, 8:30 am

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 18 2005, 1:19 am)
We see evidence of variation and adaptation all around us: plants produce bigger fruit, moths vary their colouring, bacteria adapt to antibiotics. That is not the same thing as 'Evolution' in the Darwinian sense.

Of course not. It is the mechanism by which evolution occurs: natural selection. And one can't "see" the whole process of evolution itself happen, because the timespan it works on is far longer than the lifetime of the person who'd make the observation.

Quote
The changes to evolution have not addressed its fundamental weakness: Life comes only from preexisting life.

As of now, the theory of evolution explains how life went from the original common ancestor to the myriad of species existing today. It does not touch the origin of life, which is unclear as of yet. When it is discovered, some modification of the theory may be necessary.

GalacticBlob

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4457

Report this Aug. 18 2005, 11:24 am

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 17 2005, 5:19 am)
Life comes only from preexisting life. Every scientific experiment since Pasteur has produced the same result. We see evidence of variation and adaptation all around us: plants produce bigger fruit, moths vary their colouring, bacteria adapt to antibiotics. That is not the same thing as 'Evolution' in the Darwinian sense.

The evolution theory has since progressed since Darwin.
Quote
The changes to evolution have not addressed its fundamental weakness: Life comes only from preexisting life.
Evolution and origin of life are two different theories and situations. Not to be muddled together.

PuffTrek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 369

Report this Aug. 18 2005, 5:35 pm

I believe life started to evolve up until the point of Cave men, but afterwards an extraterrestrial species came and modified those cave men to become a worker race for mining gold, silver, oil and diamonds to be used for the extraterrestrial race's advancement.

The reason I believe this is because a simple metal, not that different then other metals on this planet is the basis for all currency, and happens to be what we hold the highest wealth. If we truly evolved from cavemen then why would such an ordinary metal have such value.

Also how is it possible that it took us MILLIONS of years to evolve from Monkeys to Cave men, and in the space of a few hundred thousand years we were living in man's very first colonies moving from foraging towards agriculture?

Also why is it that every single culture has some kind of mythical being that has ascended from the heavens, even though they are separated from each other for thousands of miles?

Now this does not mean that I do not believe in god, or that these aliens are gods, I simply do not believe in the bible, nor any organized religion, but I do believe that these extraterrestrial beings were created by god, and that all creatures in the universe are gods creation.

As for what god is, I believe he is a scientist, and our entire universe is one big test tube being poked prodded and studied.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Aug. 18 2005, 9:57 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 16 2005, 7:21 pm)
Quote (lanceromega @ Aug. 17 2005, 1:59 pm)
Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 16 2005, 9:40 am)
With the debate raging over evolution, perhaps much of the disagreement is based on varying concepts of evolution, creation, etc. Here's a more fundamental question.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, I ain't sinless, but I DID cast the first vote. I went for Supernatural Creation, because I believe the design of living things is far beyond our abilities, hence relative to man the one who created life is Supernatural.

No need to attack others here, we're just having an intelligent debate.

Zef you are a fiend. Just when I was hoping that we put this silly debate to bed you find a way to continue it.

Face it the appeal to a supernatural creation is equal to those that say angels make the planets obrit the sun or that the earth is flat.

As for creating life, we human have already created artificial organism in the lab, and alter other to do things like Goat making silk in their milk to Bacteria manufacturing Insulin...

All Creation design is , is an attempt to sneak the issue of regilion into public schools.

We already have had the debate and the polls and evolution has Won here at Trek ville. Let sleeping dogs lie..

Creating artificial life in the lab would be earth-shaking news!

Anyway, you did answer the question, fiendish though it was!
Thanks.

Actually it didn't he rate a single page in most papers. I can show the original article as it appear in Nature,

"Researchers in New York have created infectious polioviruses from ordinary, inert chemicals they obtained from a scientific mail-order house, marking the first time a functional virus has been made from scratch and raising a host of new scientific and ethical concerns.

The Stony Brook team started with nothing more than a written copy of the virus's RNA code, a string of 7,741 molecular "letters" that tell the virus how to function.

The first task was to construct a strand of RNA that reflected that written blueprint. But since RNA is relatively unstable in the laboratory, the team first made a DNA version of the virus's code by ordering customized pieces of DNA from an Iowa-based company that sells made-to-order snippets of genetic material. The team assembled the molecules into a DNA equivalent of the full-length polio genome, then used an enzyme that turns DNA into RNA to make a working copy of the poliovirus's natural RNA core.

When placed in a tube filled with appropriate chemicals and enzymes, those pieces of RNA did what they do in nature: They copied themselves and started producing proteins, including protein shells into which newly made pieces of RNA were spontaneously packaged.

The result was countless functional polioviruses.

"This shows it's now possible to go from data printed on a piece of paper or stored in a computer and, without the organism itself. . . . reconstruct a life form," said John La Montagne, deputy director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. 1
"
they have also created an artifical Bacteriophage, From the USA today:

Scientists create a virus that reproduces
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just that.
But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in just two weeks' time.

When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active," meaning it went to work reproducing itself.

Venter cautioned that the creation of artificial human or animal life is a long way off because the synthetic bacteriophage  the virus that was created  is a much simpler life form. Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria.

The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.

But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?

Arthur Caplan, who heads the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, says yes. This technology "is impressive. It's powerful and it should be treated with humility and caution," Caplan says, "But we should do it."

A genome is made up of DNA "letters," or base pairs, that combine to "spell" an individual's chromosomes. The human genome project was completed in April.

This summer, researchers at Venter's Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives bought commercially available strands of DNA and, using a new technology, coaxed them together to form a duplicate of the genome of a bacteriophage called phi X.

"It's a very important technical advance," says Gerald Rubin, a molecular geneticist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "You can envision the day when one could sit down at a computer, design a genome and then build it. We're still inventing the tools to make that happen, and this is an important one."

Venter notes the synthetic bacteriophage has 5,000 base pairs in its genome. The human genome has 3 billion, so similar work in human form probably won't happen in this decade, he says.

To date, the largest genome that was synthesized was the 7,500-base-pair polio virus. But that was only semi-functional and took three years to complete.

The researchers chose to put the new technology into the public domain for all scientists to use. It will appear in the next few weeks on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The technology raises safety issues, says David Magnus of Stanford's Center for Biomedical Ethics. Even putting it in the public domain is "a double-edged sword," he says. That presumes that allowing everyone access will keep the good guys ahead of the bad guys. "It's a gamble. ... It's a bet that everyone has a stake in," he says."

Not so earth shaking since both incident went unnoticed by you..


:laugh:

PuffTrek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 369

Report this Aug. 18 2005, 10:04 pm

^^HIV/AIDS

Giantevilhead

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1175

Report this Aug. 19 2005, 12:16 am

You are all wrong, we were created by the great and benevolent Flying Spaghetti Monster. Long ago, He graced our planet with His Mighty Noodly Appendage and brought life onto this baren rock.

beef0roni

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 313

Report this Aug. 19 2005, 3:59 am

havnt you all played "the legend of zelda: ocarina of time" on nintendo 64? it tells you exactly where life comes from, in surprising detail i might add :cool:

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Aug. 19 2005, 9:20 am

Quote (beef0roni @ Aug. 18 2005, 1:59 am)
havnt you all played "the legend of zelda: ocarina of time" on nintendo 64? it tells you exactly where life comes from, in surprising detail i might add :cool:

Dawn it, I have an XBOX....

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Aug. 19 2005, 9:21 am

Quote (lanceromega @ Aug. 18 2005, 6:57 pm)
Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 16 2005, 7:21 pm)
Quote (lanceromega @ Aug. 17 2005, 1:59 pm)
Quote (ZeframCochran @ Aug. 16 2005, 9:40 am)
With the debate raging over evolution, perhaps much of the disagreement is based on varying concepts of evolution, creation, etc. Here's a more fundamental question.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, I ain't sinless, but I DID cast the first vote. I went for Supernatural Creation, because I believe the design of living things is far beyond our abilities, hence relative to man the one who created life is Supernatural.

No need to attack others here, we're just having an intelligent debate.

Zef you are a fiend. Just when I was hoping that we put this silly debate to bed you find a way to continue it.

Face it the appeal to a supernatural creation is equal to those that say angels make the planets obrit the sun or that the earth is flat.

As for creating life, we human have already created artificial organism in the lab, and alter other to do things like Goat making silk in their milk to Bacteria manufacturing Insulin...

All Creation design is , is an attempt to sneak the issue of regilion into public schools.

We already have had the debate and the polls and evolution has Won here at Trek ville. Let sleeping dogs lie..

Creating artificial life in the lab would be earth-shaking news!

Anyway, you did answer the question, fiendish though it was!
Thanks.

Actually it didn't he rate a single page in most papers. I can show the original article as it appear in Nature,

"Researchers in New York have created infectious polioviruses from ordinary, inert chemicals they obtained from a scientific mail-order house, marking the first time a functional virus has been made from scratch and raising a host of new scientific and ethical concerns.

The Stony Brook team started with nothing more than a written copy of the virus's RNA code, a string of 7,741 molecular "letters" that tell the virus how to function.

The first task was to construct a strand of RNA that reflected that written blueprint. But since RNA is relatively unstable in the laboratory, the team first made a DNA version of the virus's code by ordering customized pieces of DNA from an Iowa-based company that sells made-to-order snippets of genetic material. The team assembled the molecules into a DNA equivalent of the full-length polio genome, then used an enzyme that turns DNA into RNA to make a working copy of the poliovirus's natural RNA core.

When placed in a tube filled with appropriate chemicals and enzymes, those pieces of RNA did what they do in nature: They copied themselves and started producing proteins, including protein shells into which newly made pieces of RNA were spontaneously packaged.

The result was countless functional polioviruses.

"This shows it's now possible to go from data printed on a piece of paper or stored in a computer and, without the organism itself. . . . reconstruct a life form," said John La Montagne, deputy director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. 1
"
they have also created an artifical Bacteriophage, From the USA today:

Scientists create a virus that reproduces
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just that.
But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in just two weeks' time.

When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active," meaning it went to work reproducing itself.

Venter cautioned that the creation of artificial human or animal life is a long way off because the synthetic bacteriophage  the virus that was created  is a much simpler life form. Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria.

The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.

But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?

Arthur Caplan, who heads the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, says yes. This technology "is impressive. It's powerful and it should be treated with humility and caution," Caplan says, "But we should do it."

A genome is made up of DNA "letters," or base pairs, that combine to "spell" an individual's chromosomes. The human genome project was completed in April.

This summer, researchers at Venter's Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives bought commercially available strands of DNA and, using a new technology, coaxed them together to form a duplicate of the genome of a bacteriophage called phi X.

"It's a very important technical advance," says Gerald Rubin, a molecular geneticist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "You can envision the day when one could sit down at a computer, design a genome and then build it. We're still inventing the tools to make that happen, and this is an important one."

Venter notes the synthetic bacteriophage has 5,000 base pairs in its genome. The human genome has 3 billion, so similar work in human form probably won't happen in this decade, he says.

To date, the largest genome that was synthesized was the 7,500-base-pair polio virus. But that was only semi-functional and took three years to complete.

The researchers chose to put the new technology into the public domain for all scientists to use. It will appear in the next few weeks on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The technology raises safety issues, says David Magnus of Stanford's Center for Biomedical Ethics. Even putting it in the public domain is "a double-edged sword," he says. That presumes that allowing everyone access will keep the good guys ahead of the bad guys. "It's a gamble. ... It's a bet that everyone has a stake in," he says."

Not so earth shaking since both incident went unnoticed by you..


:laugh:

Mmm. That is an impressive accomplishment, alright. They didn't create their viruses from scratch; they started with 'snippets of DNA'. Isn't that kind of like writing a story by cutting and pasting in pieces of other peoples' stories? Where did the original DNA come from that the company is replicating and providing? Dollars to doughnuts, they lifted it from pre-existing life.

I read many years ago about the first time RNA was synthesizedfrom scratch; it took many years. It isn't really the same thing as creating life, though. The researchers at that time didn't make the claim that they'd created life. They were trying to research the possibility that chemicals on their own could form RNA to provide the start of spontaneous life. The results did not inspire optimism.

I don't personally think of viruses as alive, being composed of only genetic material and a protien capsule (or apparently sometimes just the genetic material? Viroids?). They contain none of the other mechanisms essential to life. They are inert, essentially, without living host cells; pre-existing life. They're self-replicating genes, parasitizing living things. They are like the protiens that produce BSE. By the definition of life, they are not alive. They do not eat, for example, or metabolize.They interfere with life, but are not alive.

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."? Still, impressive and could be medically useful.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum