CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This is more like an update on old news, Craig Venter reported progress with similar experiments in other bacteria years ago. However, what I'm really excited about are his efforts to synthetically create Eukaryotic cells. That's the next logical step, but it's so much more work.
The trouble with Eubacteria is that they contain small genomes, and so they have limits on the types of proteins, enzymes and chemicals they can express. If you make too complicated a genome, it won't "fit" in other words, although it's probably more correct to say that it'll eat up all the host cell's energy and precursors to express.
Archaea are a little better, because some species have genuine chromosomes, which probably means more potential for larger artificial genomes, but like Eubacteria we must remember that these are small cells with limited input. Also, the genetic codes are different in Archaea, by a little bit (and in some phyla of Eubacteria too, I believe). So if we're cutting and pasting between organisms for mass protein/chemical expression as the news article suggests, we must revise the genes so that they have the right amino acid for their triplets (if it came from Eukarya, that is, and we must also cut out introns but that's obvious).
The main issue with Eukaryotic cells compared to prokaryotes is that Eukaryotes are markedly more difficult to modify, you need retroviruses typically if you want to add a gene sequence, although I've heard of circular genomes existing in some Eukaryotes, for expression too so this might not be as bad as I think. If it's an entirely synthetic genome, I imagine the worst issue is finding a way to wrap up your genome into a package that can fit in the target cell. I can't imagine the headache involved in working with so many enzymes to stitch up complementary segments of DNA, then compressing the genome somehow for injection into the cell.
As for ethics, the purpose of this debate, I believe it is our ethical and moral responsibility to use this technology to make our civilisation less wasteful and damaging towards our environment. We should make bacteria that can, in a single stage, ferment cellulose into ethanol for car engines. We should make bacteria that can break crude oil down into less toxic molecules like polysaccharides, oxygen and nitrogen gas, and inert sulphur compounds, so that oil spills are less of a threat. We should make bacteria that signal pollutants or hazardous compounds with a colour-changing biofilm, we should use this technology to take existing endangered species and make them resilient towards the new environment, particularly keystone species. These technologies are what will save us, ultimately.
so what if we create life, it simple is a different form of creation. whether a baby comes form a mom or a test lab it does it does not diminish the creationist theory.
the womb is like a lab per se. you add the right amount of this and that and you get a human embryo. so what if pregnancy and birth become obsolete, it does not disprove that god created life.
how do you think God he created life, by a women? no by using science and the chemicals of earth and other outwardly even divine stuff you could say to make a human.
however one thing remains. we can not recreate the human mind and create our own conscious reasoning mind in a creature. that remains to God alone. we can borrow the genes of a humanistic mind to artificially make a human, but we can not create the gene for a conscious mind of our own record. it is impossible and i believe will remain impossible.
"Anybody can make a man, but only God can make a tree."
I guess this (with the exclusion of the latter phrase for the atheists) is slowly becoming true.
Ethically? I had been under the impression that life (or the creation thereof) was held sacred only by religious groups; what concern should atheists have of it? It is simply another way to perfect an extremely imperfect race - once it eventually gets to that level of ingenuity.
If it gets to the point where we are creating full-grown human beings out of 'thin air', well then there should be some concerns about safety, overpopulation, disease, etc. but until then is there really anything ethically unsound about it?
But, it is only a piece of bacteria that we're talking about! Come on, it's not like it's going to make sex obsolete (or the human race?). Some people are sure to marvel at it, but we are extremely far from anything either too dangerous or too human-like.
Sure, in the wrong hands, anything may be dangerous, but I wouldn't worry about something as mundane as bacteria.
If it were modified to be a bioweapon of sorts, then there'd be room for concern.
Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form
If the "peer review process" confirms this claim, then it can also be validly argued therefrom that:
The creation of life is the result of an intelligent creator/s! The creationist's view is that God took a bunch of dust and created "man" thereby. It would seem as though science has finally confirmed the belief of creationists, while at the same time denying the base premise of evolutionists.
Am I correct? Yes! That is why we shall later see that the consensus of scientific opinion denies the current conclusion of Craig Venter’s experiment. I could drive this into the ground, but I think Craig’s claim is obviously a curse instead of a blessing for evolution.
(If scientists successfully create “life”, non-synthetic or synthetic, it only evidences that intelligent design is a valid position.)
It would seem as though science has finally confirmed the belief of creationists, while at the same time denying the base premise of evolutionists.
It would seem that scientists have confirmed the evolutionary explanation for the start of life, and debunked the creationist view.
Craig Ventor first of all only technically photocopied an existing genome which would not make him a creator, Secondly if genetic science with its short thirty or so years can by mixing four bottles of chemicals synthesize a genome, then the nutrient rich earth 3 billion years ago could have easily, over the one and a half billion years it had, blend together the right molecules to create life. The fact that Ventor did it means that life could have easily come about by chance. This would throw the creationist view out the window.
Am I correct? Yes!
No you are not.
I think Craig’s claim is obviously a curse instead of a blessing for evolution.
This could be evolutions nuke to finally destroy creationist theory.
If scientists successfully create “life”, non-synthetic or synthetic, it only evidences that intelligent design is a valid position.)
The problem though as I find it is the creationist camp is divided into two, Deist Intelligent designists firmly support evolutionary theory, where as pure creationists do not. This can not go against Intelligent Design or evolutionary theory as both believe the same thing with certain caveats.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; albeit those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be accepted as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
I don't find anything particularly holy about the theory of evolution, but I do understand its significance. Aside from being supported by incredible amounts of evidence, and having been observed in nature, our understanding of evolution is key to medical research. This is the main reason I am upset when people try to claim that their 2,000 year old religious texts are more accurate than scientific inquiry: they are actually impeding the development of modern medicine.
I don't find anything particularly holy about the theory of evolution, but I do understand its significance.
There is nothing wrong with the term ‘holy’ as a modifier. We frequently use the term ‘holiday’ when referencing days of significance. Holiday is immediately derived from ‘holy’+day. Most college level dictionaries evidence that derivation. The term ‘holy’ connotes a meaning of importance and significance within a class of mostly, insignificant properties.
Holy Book
Holy Day
Holy Man
Holy Cow
Holy Theory
Holy Birth
Holy Shit
Albeit, I can understand why one would refuse to use it as a modifier.
Aside from being supported by incredible amounts of evidence, and having been observed in nature, our understanding of evolution is key to medical research. This is the main reason I am upset when people try to claim that their 2,000 year old religious texts are more accurate than scientific inquiry: they are actually impeding the development of modern medicine.
I do not doubt you are convinced of the application of evolutionary theory in the advancement of medical knowledge. In and of itself, your view unto that end is commendable.
But, I think modern-day medical advancement is a beneficial consequence of scientific research to prove the theory of evolution. Or stated another way: Scientists have grossly failed to support the theory of evolution, while at the same time having successfully learned more about animal biology than had they if they were not trying to prove something.
On those grounds, I can agree to an extent with your contention.
Think of it like this: The scientific pursuit to prove something, which has yet to be proven (to me at least), has been more beneficial to medical advancement than achieving the goal of the pursuit.
May they, the scientists, continue their pursuit of the unachievable so that we may endlessly benefit from the efforts of their pursuit.
(Maybe the creationists have kept the evolutionists from resting upon their laurels.)
From your argument you seem to imply that there are two extremes, and each is incorrect, whereas you in the middle are the sane one. While there are certainly cases in politics and other fields in which the middle ground is the best option merely assuming this to always be the case without looking at the argument itself is obviously a flawed argument, especially when it comes to matters of science. We wouldn't suppose that it is reasonable to assume that the earth is half flat and half spherical would we? Or that the center of the solar system lies somewhere between the sun and the earth? Of course not.
You claim that we have not "proven" evolution, and when I hear claims like this I think of a certain quote:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould (US author, naturalist, paleontologist, & popularizer of science (1941 - 2002))
What I guess I have a problem with is that countless thousands of biologists have spent their life's work studying the evidence and for over a hundred years, every single reputable biologist who has studied evolutionary theory has been convinced that the proof is sufficient. Evolution has not been proven to you however, and therefore it remains unproven. I must ask you then: have you looked extensively at the evidence? Have you done more than go on a couple of websites and message boards in which amateurs on both sides discuss the topics, and actually listen to biologists who have shaped the way we think about life on this planet?
Let me ask you something else: what would you consider proof? I often hear you talk about proofs in the philosophical sense, however, unlike philosophy, science relies on circumstantial evidence derived from observation. We send people to prison for life with a lesser burden of proof than the theory of evolution has withstood. So, in a hypothetical situation, what evidence would you need to see in order to convince you of evolutions "truth"?
Would the theory need to make testable prediction? Let's say, hypothetically, scientists used their knowledge of evolution to predict exactly where they might find the fossils of a certain species. And then lets say based on this prediction scientists went to this area, searched for these fossils, and found exactly what they were looking for, dating from the exact time period predicted. Would this prove it yo you? If so, I would recommend you read this article about our evidence of whale evolution, or this one (or both if you are interested in the subject and have some free time.
I don't mean to come off as harsh, and in most instances I consider myself someone who can both sides of an issue, however, here the evidence is unambiguously clear and far to often do I see people who haven't taken a day of biology assume that they understand all the evidence. It really is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect except with knowledge as opposed to skill.
As far as medicine goes I think you misunderstand me. While an understanding of biology has certainly helped modern medicine advance, what I was referring to was the advancement of medicine as a direct result of our knowledge of evolution, not as some fortunate consequence of our investigation. Scientists use an understanding of evolution when developing vaccines and medicines that save millions of lives. Or to put it another way:
From your argument you seem to imply that there are two extremes, and each is incorrect, whereas you in the middle are the sane one.
From what did I imply I am sane when they are not?
While there are certainly cases in politics and other fields in which the middle ground is the best option merely assuming this to always be the case without looking at the argument itself is obviously a flawed argument, especially when it comes to matters of science. We wouldn't suppose that it is reasonable to assume that the earth is half flat and half spherical would we? Or that the center of the solar system lies somewhere between the sun and the earth? Of course not.
I did not provide an argument that creates a middle term for each theory.
Creationism is true to fact or it is not.
Evolution is true to fact or it is not.
I affirm that both are not true to fact. This is not a middle ground argument. I am not asserting that each theory is particularly both true and false. Furthermore I did not establish a dichotomy of either theory; this is rather an application of the ‘law of the excluded middle term’.
You claim that we have not "proven" evolution, and when I hear claims like this I think of a certain quote:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould (US author, naturalist, paleontologist, & popularizer of science (1941 - 2002))
I am in the process of systematically responding to your rebuttal. However, that quote has caused me to pause that process and digress, temporarily, with a rebuttal of Mr. Gould’s assertion and analogy.
But, before I do, I will give you the first opportunity to submit a brief analysis of the same; after which I will also submit an analysis. And having concluded our discussion of this matter, I will then resume my initial intent.
Sounds good to me, but I only ask that we don't spend too much time on the quote and move back to the heart of the discussion.
The quotation is obviously addressed to those people who argued that something like creationism be taught in school. Although, it is possible that an all mighty being created the world 6,000 years ago and planted all the evidence to look like organisms evolved over billions of years, from an objective scientific standpoint, this isn't a very useful theory because it doesn't help to explain the evidence.
I understand that there is a certain amount of uncertainty that exists in all of our knowledge but where do we draw the line? If we go by Descartes's skeptical hypothesis then we can only really be sure that we exist, and few other philosophers have proven much else (I am aware that Descartes went on to try and prove more things that we clearly and distinctly perceive, but I don't find his arguments convincing). Therefore, we must rely on observations coupled with very basic assumptions in order to build theories to explain our world. When this process first really began during the enlightenment, our ability to observe was limited, and we were still tied down by thousands of year old traditions that kept us from moving forward. Ideas that challenged accepted truths (whether these truths came from religion or classical thinkers such as Aristotle) were often considered heresy. Great thinkers such as Galileo were silenced.
As we began to move away from the dogmatism of the middle ages, our knowledge grew in numerous areas. Probably the most significant work done by any single individual was by Netwon and his Principia. He essentially invented (or discovered) calculus and founded modern physics. Other scientists made significant discoveries as well, each of which changed the way we looked at the world. Scientific theories began to evolve to describe these observations.
Darwin was able to revolutionize biology with his theory of natural selection. What many people don't realize is scientists understood that evolution had been occurring before Darwin came along, but none could accurately describe the process. They saw that fossils appeared to change into more familiar forms as they moved up in the fossil record (which at the time was very limited). Theories explaining how this could occur were varied: one proposed that animals adapted slightly to their environment during their lifetime and these adaptations were passed on to their children. What Darwin (and also Alfred Russell Wallace a little bit later) was able to figure out was the idea that random mutations could be selected by environmental pressures causing the species to change over time. 100 years later we would discover the mechanism which allows these random mutations to occur and be passed down is our genetic code, thus confirming Darwin's prediction about heritable traits.
The problem with Darwin's theory was that it would have required the earth to be at least a couple billion years old for there to be a common ancestor (because of how gradual a process evolution is) and at the time, estimates put the age of the earth at around a couple hundred million years. Once again, this issue was later resolved when scientists came up with more precise and accurate ways to measure the age of the earth.
For the next 150 years up until today, every experimental test, and every challenge posed to evolution was met. The fossil record has become much larger than Darwin could ever have imagined, and we have yet to find a fossil that contradicts the theory of evolution (for example, never have we found a horse from the Jurassic era, or a dinosaur bone that dates back only 2,000 years).
Now I know I got sidetracked from the quotation, however, I figured it was necessary to go over the background of the theories and why Stephen Jay Gould, and other evolutionary biologists share these sentiments.
Now, you "affirm that both are not true to fact" and by that statement I can assume you mean 1 of two things: either you believe that there is evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, or that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that evolution has occurred in nature. If you could clarify as to which of these two best represents your position (or both) so that we can talk about any contradictory evidence or lack of supporting evidence it would be helpful.
I am dropping the issue of Mr. Gould’s assertion. Primarily because I perceive you have an interest in considering a viewpoint (without prejudice) which is contradictory of yours’. And, in all fairness, because you are honest with me, I too shall be honest with you. Let’s proceed in that manner.
I shall now begin the process of explaining my opposition to the theory of evolution as a consequence of a reasonable approach. (This will not be easily communicated, so don’t be too critical of what maybe perceived as being ‘overly complex’ or ‘overly simplistic’; so confirm, before you conclude, I have adequately communicated my thoughts to you when you are interpreting statements that appear to be either.) (Key note-- I don’t’ accept this: When not evolution, therefore creation, or when not creation, therefore evolution.)
The theory of evolution is predicated upon the presumption that the knowledge of the diversity of life is derivable from ‘a posteriori’ knowledge. This is the foundational principle of the theory. However, that presumption is only possible by ‘a priori’ knowledge.
Alright, I want to make sure I understand your view correctly, so please clarify this for me if I have misunderstood. Your claim is that those who support evolution can only support their position with knowledge that is not reliant on empirical data, but merely through logical inferences (inferences, I'm assuming that you believe to be untenable)?
If this is your position (and I am not at all sure that it is) I would first state that yes, an armchair approach could be taken to the subject in which one considers the logical result of organisms that reproduce and pass on heritable traits to their children in environments which favor certain traits. Considering this, one may very well come to the conclusion that evolution would occur with the life we see on this planet. Computer simulations of evolution have confirmed this as a being true: that things that reproduce and pass down traits do indeed evolve.
Another separate line of logic would be to consider that each of us comes from our parents, and that they come from their parents etc, until you end up with a point of convergence. The same would be true of all animal species, and for certain species there would appear to be convergence of the genus where there is very little difference (Darwin's finches for example). This process could continue indefinitely until genuses merged into their families, families into their orders, and so on and so forth until you reached a common descendent. This line of logic has proven statistically sound when compared with a statistical analysis of certain proteins.
Aside from these arguments however, there remains the hard evidence. Evolution was not accepted by the scientific community until there was sufficient fossil, and morphological evidence to back up the ideas. Evolution became true beyond any reasonable doubt long ago, but has since only gained evidence.
I feel like you have somewhat of a misconception about how scientists go about studying evolution, and how science in general is conducted. People don't use science to prove themselves right; they use it to become right. In this case people followed the evidence, and this evidence led to evolution, and this is the primary difference between evolution and creationism (not that you are supporting creationism). In creationism, the answer is already assumed and all that needs to be done is to find evidence that supports the conclusion. In science, theories come about as a result of the evidence, and evolution is no exception. Had evidence contradicted evolution, the theory would have been thrown out regardless of any 'a priori' arguments.
Allow me to illustrate this further with a brief digression into quantum mechanics. Numerous philosophers created convincing a priori arguments that something cannot come from nothing. In spite of this when scientists looked at the quantum world, they discovered virtual particles. Briefly: virtual particles are pairs of particles that briefly come into existence and then annihilate with each other. Strange though it may sound, virtual particles aren't just some crazy idea on the fringe of science, but an understood and measured phenomenon. The point that I am making is that regardless of what arguments we are able to come up with in our heads, we have to base our theories not on a priori arguments but on measurable, testable evidence. In this case the philosophers were wrong, and all it took was to actually look at the world and see what was really there.
Once again, I am not completely clear of what you meant by your argument so if appears that I have misrepresented it, please clarify.
I was attempting to merely draw-out your knowledge and position on the limitations and basis of human knowledge and their axioms in that regard. I will later reference the same if necessary.
According to what I understand, which is according to what I have been taught and confirmed by personal observation, the theory of evolution is another explanation of diversity by mutation; in which case the theory can be verified by the empiricism derived from the artificial selection of a cattle farmer or dog breeder. The theory of evolution is true to fact on this account, but the theory was not developed for that purpose; it was developed for the purpose of alleging genus to genus mutations which originate from a single progenitor of another genus.
However from what evidence, empirical, shall we infer the mutation of a genus from and to a genus? I know the fossil record is cited as evidence of the same, but there is no empirical evidence available that confirms, or any test that verifies, that genus ‘B’ is the consequent of the antecedent progenitor ‘Z’.
You are correct in that mutations are what allows evolution to occur. The effect that these mutations have on the organism's ability to pass on its genes determines which of these mutations will become part of the genetic makeup of the species.
The examples that you use, however, aren't actually great examples of evolution (don't worry it's a common mistake). Though dogs have been bread to exaggerate traits, all dogs are still the same species. There does exist a difference in genes, and actually scientists can use these differences to determine a dogs breed just using a DNA test. There are however examples of speciation (italian wall lizard, fruit flys etc...).
So now we arrive back at your question about genus. Well what is a genus? It's a label obviously and its used to classify animals, but like many labels it's fairly arbitrary. There are certain rules on how to determine into which genus an organism should fall, however these laws are determined arbitrarily by scientific organizations. The same is true with all classifications all the way up to kingdom. The only classification that actually does have a specific non-arbitrary definition is species. We define two organisms as being in different species if they can't reproduce, however this definition only works for organisms that reproduce sexually, and even with organisms that reproduce sexually there are some issues. For example, you can have 4 groups of...lets say salamanders for this example. Group A can reproduce with group B, group B can reproduce with group C and group C can reproduce with group D but groups A and D cannot reproduce with each other. So here we have a little problem, and we see that the term species is not transitive since A and D must be distinct species but each group is in the same species with the intermediates. The reason I chose the example of salamanders is because we see this very thing with the Enstania salamanders on the pacific coast (source).
So what does any of this have to do with an animal evolving into a different genus? Well, by definition the ancestors of species are the same genus as that species. What this means is that animals don't change genus but genuses did "diverge." So I guess to answer your question, if we saw enough changes in a certain species then it could arbitrarily be given its own genus. The reason this isn't something we see commonly is because changing of genus obviously takes long than changing on species. Bacteria, however, have very short generations and therefore there has been enough change for scientists to assign them a new genus sourcesource.
So that's basically my long way of saying that we have seen a change in genus.
As far as the test to see if one species came from another, all we have to do is test the genetics. We use the same idea to test whether someone is the parent of a child (like they do on Maury) or to see if someone is your ancestor based on skeletal remains. This however only works for very recent ancestors because once fossilization occurs, no organic matter exists, and therefore it is not possible to procure a DNA sample (although we are getting better at it source.)
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
You defend neither but lean towards creationism. eg:
The creation of life is the result of an intelligent creator/s! The creationist's view is that God took a bunch of dust and created "man" thereby. It would seem as though science has finally confirmed the belief of creationists, while at the same time denying the base premise of evolutionists.
I simply pointed out that it would more than likely infer a positive position for the evolutionist. you then went on to state.
Am I correct? Yes! That is why we shall later see that the consensus of scientific opinion denies the current conclusion of Craig Venter’s experiment. I could drive this into the ground, but I think Craig’s claim is obviously a curse instead of a blessing for evolution.
Can you tell me that these are the words of a person not taking a side. Your use of language is subtle but it is completely evident that you were siding.
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
While it is true that some evolutionists mock their opponents others do not and it would seem that you are siding again not with a belief but with a minority in order to do what exactly?
The creation of life is the result of an intelligent creator/s! The creationist's view is that God took a bunch of dust and created "man" thereby. It would seem as though science has finally confirmed the belief of creationists, while at the same time denying the base premise of evolutionists.
You don't see the unfalsifiability of your assumption, do you? Creationists have always held that life is too complex to have evolved, requiring a god to create it. Therefore they believed that life could never be created synthetically by mere mortals. It gets worse because at the same time they posit that if life is created synthetically, it proves intelligence must have created all life.
In other words:
Can we make life? Yes => Intelligent design
Can we make life? No => Intelligent design
Am I correct? Yes! That is why we shall later see that the consensus of scientific opinion denies the current conclusion of Craig Venter’s experiment. I could drive this into the ground, but I think Craig’s claim is obviously a curse instead of a blessing for evolution.
Evolution is a fact, as are the experiments supporting abiogenesis. Craig Venter, one of my personal "heroes" (not that I have role models or actual heroes, but the man definitely receives my highest praise), has merely put the final nail in the coffin for the notion that life is somehow magical and beyond the ability of science to mimic and create.
In the article they said that he was derided as playing god, but I'd say it's more correct to assert that he's beating god at his own game.
(If scientists successfully create “life”, non-synthetic or synthetic, it only evidences that intelligent design is a valid position.)
No it isn't, because we weren't designed. We evolved through natural processes. You'll note that unlike Craig Venter's artificial bacterium, we have no watermarks in our DNA that can be read and decoded into a message from the creator.
In the article they said that he was derided as playing god, but I'd say it's more correct to assert that he's beating god at his own game.
This is something scared (scared of having their ideas crushed) people say when something ground breaking in Biology is discovered, No other science receives this sort of criticism.
If God created everything then Physicists and Chemists can be accused of playing God as they are messing about with pure elements and molecules. Which would also be Gods creations if I am not mistaken.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; but those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be understood as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
That is why I think that question is un-intelligent. :)
But, if it is an intelligent question then I concede that at least one human is intelligent. But if I am not the one, intelligent human then my un-intelligence disqualifies me from understanding the question so I can then answer it.
If the "peer review process" confirms this claim, then it can also be validly argued therefrom that:
The creation of life is the result of an intelligent creator/s!
Oh gosh, how did i know this was going to happen?
For the last many decades creationists have ceaselessly complained that evolution was obviously impossible because we DIDN'T create life in a lab so it's clearly too hard for it to happen in nature. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what you are now claiming is "the belief of creationists".
Then we create life in a lab and the claim instantly flips and becomes that evolution is impossible because we DID create life in a lab, therefore it didn't happen naturally! It required intelligent intervention!
Classic example of "it doesn't matter what the evidence is, declare it supports creationism!"
Which is why I can't agree with the "Goodbye Creationist Myth" tag. That would be true if people who belived in creationism cared about evidence. They don't. So no possible piece of evidence is going to kill the myth.
Which is why I can't agree with the "Goodbye Creationist Myth" tag.
The tag was purely gleeful smuggery, it wasnt meant to be taken seriously.
That would be true if people who believed in creationism cared about evidence. They don't. So no possible piece of evidence is going to kill the myth.
This I agree with, I have often asked people of a creationist slant about how they would turn if tomorrow there was irrefutable proof of the non existence of a creator and there is never an answer.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; but those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be understood as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
It'll be just like every other 'discovery'. Creationists will announce that it proves creationism, and evolutionists will claim that it proves evolution.
It has more credence to creationism (no evolution with the thing yet). Give it a couple weeks (differing on reproduction speed), then it will evolve, giving credence to evolution, and more credence to theist evolution. Which will be the one who mostly benefits from this.
My previous statement was meant as an analogy. Evolutionists and Creationists, for decades, have been enemies, and that statement was meant as an example of the insults that accompanies said hatred.
and the debate will still probably live on until we all ready have a world full of artificially intelligent machines which creationists will claim to be a proof that only life can only be created by an intelligent designer.
It is not possible to make life out of scratch. Every time they tried it just pushed them farther back. Only God can do it and whoever says they did has no proof, can't do it again, and they are lying
Did you read the article? Turns out you can make life. I'm not saying this is evidence for one side or the other, I'm just saying that you are clearly in denial of reality.
I don't see how this would prove or disprove Creationism. Is this what scientific debates have degraded too? Proving or disproving creationism? Isn't there more interesting things to debate?
Anyway, Rant off, It is an interesting breakthrough.
