"Sometimes the media appear to believe that the creation of artificial life will take place when the complete genome of a living single-cell will be replaced by a complete different artificial genome, and the result will be viable. But even this would not be artificial life. If it can be done (epigenetic incompatibility could make it impossible), what would have been attained is the manipulation of a living being of one species, to transform it into an individual of a different species. A great achievement, yes, but life would not have been created, because the initial cell was alive. Things must be named properly."
Yes: "Things must be named properly" ... and far too many people *hate* the proper naming of things.
As it turns out, "life" is in the cell itself, not in the DNA. That is, DNA is not in the driver's seat, it's not the program ... it's just the database
I think you're wrong about that. The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome.
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot: "I think you're wrong about that. The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome."
If this were true, then certain things *have* to follow from it; non-exhaustively: 1) cross-species cloning of eukaryotes will be no more difficult that intra-species cloning; 2) when a cross-species clone is produced, the resulting organism will be indistinguishable from any member of the species from which the DNA was taken;
To the general reader, go ahead: take one guess as to whether either of those statements are true in fact.
After Im-parrotic had demonstrated, yet again, that he is refuses to *think* about anything that will show his puerile materialism for what it is, I'll post a link of interest.
"cross-species cloning of eukaryotes will be no more difficult that intra-species cloning;"
Oh, dear. Illion is pretending he knows something about science again. This is the same guy who insists that Darwinian evolution always results in a competitive struggle for survival between species. (It doesn't.)
What do Christians think about artificial life? Suppose scientists really started from mere chemicals like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen etc. and used simple physical means like heating, mixing etc. to make a self-reproducing cell having some kind of genes. Would that require Christians to change their beliefs?
John Lesse: "Suppose intelligent agents intentionally started with mere chemicals and purposely using physical means managed to produce a self-replicating cell having some kind of genes. Would that require Christians to change their beliefs that biological life (and the entire physical sub-strata of biology) was intentionally created by an intelligent agent?"
I-pretend-to-integrity: "This is the same guy who insists that Darwinian evolution always results in a competitive struggle for survival between species. (It doesn't.)"
Of course, like all DarwinDefenders (and most 'atheists' and leftists), I-pretend will say *just anything*
Now, in actual fact, I-pretend can't produce any evidence that I have ever said such a thing (for I never have). At the same time, Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this.
But, as usual for DarwinDefenders, I-pretend is engaging in distraction. He's trying to distract the reader's attention from the fact that he needs to back-off his initial denial of my statement that "DNA is not in the driver's seat".
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot: "Oh, dear. Illion is pretending he knows something about science again."
Actually, Ilíon was simply making explicit some of the logical entailments of the Dawkins-Parrot's own assertion. Recall, while denying my claim that "DNA is not in the driver's seat", the Parrot insisted to the contrary that: "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome."
That statement, parroting Dawkins though it may be, is simply a bed-rock belief -- an article-of-faith -- of present-day Darwinism. (*)
Now, Gentle Reader, use your own mind -- never be intimidated by the (ignorant and/or dishonest) sneers of the DarwinDefender true believer -- is it not the case that if one says that "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome" then one has *also* said that whether one removes the 1n nuceus of an oocyte and replaces it with 2n DNA from a member of the species from which the oocyte came, or with 2n DNA from a member of an entirely different species, makes no difference? Has one not said that the resulting organism will be a clone of the orgamism from which the DNA was taken, and as indistinguishable from that precise organism, other than by age, as any two natural clones (which, amongst humans, we call "identical twins")?
Is it not, after all, the case that this Darwinistic article-of-faith that "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome" is the belief that is behind Darwinistic speculations that if complete DNA of some dinosaur species could be extracted from amber-fossilized blood-sucking insects that a living dinosaur might be cloned?
(*) Though, in that amusing DarLogic manner, the really, really true-believer DarwinDefender is able to both believe and dis-believe the statement, as circumstance requires.
======== So, once again, the precise point at dispute is this --
Me, knowing what I'm talking about, as per usual: "DNA is not in the driver's seat, it's not the program ... it's just the database."
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot, saying *just anything*, as per usual: "I think you're wrong about that. The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome."
Distractions won't cut it, Parrot. This is what you asserted ... this is what your God-denial requires you to assert.
If you want to recant, then you must do it openly; I'm not going to allow you to change the subject.
"Now, in actual fact, I-pretend can't produce any evidence that I have ever said such a thing (for I never have). At the same time, Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this."
You're so good at digging up quotes from earlier posts, you should be able to find it yourself. It was only a couple of months ago. Are you now denying that you said what you said? But clearly you agree with it: " At the same time, Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this."
Here's a clue for you. Darwinists don't say this. The problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Now, as for your theory about how easy it should be to do cross-species cloning, I don't suppose you care to explain how this simple feat should be accomplished? No? I didn't think so. What passes for logical thought in your religion-adddled brain might sit well with your fellow theists, but it would never pass muster in a science lab.
"Would that require Christians to change their beliefs?" (John Moore)
No.
To Ilion:
Mosquitoes like Skep were buzzing around actual thinkers way back in the ol' B.C. days. Came across this passage just yesterday: "Do not argue with a chatterer [i.e., "troll"], nor heap wood on his fire." (Sirach 8:3) Useful advice, even unto this present day.
My representation if Illion's scientific ignorance was accurate, and he confirmed it right here: " Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this."
Illion has his own idea of what is true, and no logic or evidence will move him off his perch of self-proclaimed irreproachability. Come to think of it, that sounds rather like you.
William, you've never actually read any of Darwin's unreadable tome (*), have you? the whole point of which is that *all* of biology and biological history is explained by competition for scarce resources, with some races (i.e. 'varieties') being more favored in that universal competition, and thus supplanting the 'less favored'.
Concerning the Parrot's specific quibbleous accusation, Teh Maaster himself says, more than once in his unreadable tome, to paraphrase, "Should anyone find any instance of a species possessing a trait that aids or favors another species but does not advance its own interest in the Grand Competition, then my theory would be completely blown up."
He didn't mean it, of course ('it' being that he'd acknowledge his "theory" to be incorrect) -- he already knew about a few such instances. But he did say it.
Nor, apparently, have you paid any attention to what Darwinists themselves have said about competition (**). For example, the reason that Darwinists insist that what they call "altruism" (by which term they sometimes even refer to actual alturism) is *really* just sophisticated competition is because competition is all Darwinism has.
When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer. Darwinism has one nail: competition. Thus, *everything* is, in Darwinistic terms, competition, whether directly or indirectly.
Perhaps you could find something more useful to do with your gong? Especially seeing that this competition distraction was introduced specifically as a distraction. Else, someone may think you're just trying to demonstrate I Corinthians 13:1.
(*) quite understandable, it *is* unreadable, after all.
(**) quite understandable, as in their next breath they'll assert exactly the opposite of what they just asserted.
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. You can quote-mine Darwin, but it doesn't mean you understand what he is saying. Did you not read the words immediately before "in the Grand Competition"? Do you have any inkling what he is saying? Did you not read the article I cited on Evolution 101? You know, the one that discusses cooperative survival mechanisms?
But if you insist that this is just a distraction, why don't we return to the original ridiculous claim you made in an ill-advised effort to make yourself sound scientifically literate. Go ahead and explain the scientific basis for your statements:
"If this were true, then certain things *have* to follow from it; non-exhaustively: 1) cross-species cloning of eukaryotes will be no more difficult that intra-species cloning; 2) when a cross-species clone is produced, the resulting organism will be indistinguishable from any member of the species from which the DNA was taken;"
Here is an interesting 38-minute lecture: Oxford British biologist Denis Noble debunks neo-Darwinism (*). The part immediately relevant to the Dawkins Parrot's insistence upon disputing what I'd said at the beginning, merely because his (false) metaphysics demands that it be true that "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome" is in the section from 20:32-29:38 (or skip to the 25:40-27:53 marks to skip some preliminary info).
On the other hand, Mr Noble is incorrect at the 3:20 mark when he says, "And then around 1900, there was the integration of Mendelian inheritance, that is discrete inheritance with evolutionary theory ..." So, since he's wrong about that, perhaps he's also wrong when he says that Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" meme is false.
What really happened is that when Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900, everyone except the Darwin True-Believers thought that 'discrete inheritance' had put paid to Darwinism. It took the DarwinDefender True-Believers until about 1930 to formulate the idea of "random mutations" in a way that seemed to make sense -- this is why 'modern evolutionary theory' is called 'neo-Darwinism' and "the modern synthesis".
As 'modern evolutionary theory' is the stale 19th century metaphysical ramblings of a Victorian-era lay-about, with a slight gloss added in the 1930s to disguise a glaring problem (**), perhaps it might better be called "the moderne synthesis".
The fact is, 'modern evolutionary theory' is today in America the state sanctioned Atheist Creation Myth, not because of some nowhere-to-be-seen "mountains of evidence" that useful-idiots, such as the Dawkins Parrot, are forever prattling on about, but rather because politically powerful atheists *need* it to be true.
As is sometimes said by the Chinese, paraphrasing: "in China (where the recorded lecture took place), one is allowed to criticize Darwin, but not Marx; whereas in America, one is allowed (however grudgingly) to criticize Marx, but not Darwin".
Won't the world be such a much nicer place when *both* those stale 19th century expressions of materialistic reductionist imperialism are tossed onto the Trash Heap of History to join the unlamented third expression (Freudianism) already there?
(*) he shows -- using actual science (for 'modern evolutionary theory' is not, and never was, a scientific theory) -- that each of the key dogmas of neo-Darwinism is factually false.
(**) which seems to be a strategy 'inherited' from Himself.
So after a week, you haven't answered the question: what is the scientific justification for your claims? You have none. Instead, you divert to the groundless accusation that Darwin can't be criticized by the followers of religious Darwinism. But this is nothing but another myth perpetrated by creationists like yourself. The myth has been dealt with. It's time you get a grip on some factual information, not just your asinine myths.
15 comments:
"Sometimes the media appear to believe that the creation of artificial life will take place when the complete genome of a living single-cell will be replaced by a complete different artificial genome, and the result will be viable. But even this would not be artificial life. If it can be done (epigenetic incompatibility could make it impossible), what would have been attained is the manipulation of a living being of one species, to transform it into an individual of a different species. A great achievement, yes, but life would not have been created, because the initial cell was alive. Things must be named properly."
Yes: "Things must be named properly" ... and far too many people *hate* the proper naming of things.
As it turns out, "life" is in the cell itself, not in the DNA. That is, DNA is not in the driver's seat, it's not the program ... it's just the database
"DNA is not in the driver's seat"
I think you're wrong about that. The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome.
Me, knowing what I'm talking about, as per usual: "DNA is not in the driver's seat, it's not the program ... it's just the database."
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot, never quite figuring out that I *always* know what I'm talking about: "I think you're wrong about that."
But then, this is the same fellow who totally twisted around the point of a comment I'd made recently
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot: "I think you're wrong about that. The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome."
If this were true, then certain things *have* to follow from it; non-exhaustively:
1) cross-species cloning of eukaryotes will be no more difficult that intra-species cloning;
2) when a cross-species clone is produced, the resulting organism will be indistinguishable from any member of the species from which the DNA was taken;
To the general reader, go ahead: take one guess as to whether either of those statements are true in fact.
After Im-parrotic had demonstrated, yet again, that he is refuses to *think* about anything that will show his puerile materialism for what it is, I'll post a link of interest.
"cross-species cloning of eukaryotes will be no more difficult that intra-species cloning;"
Oh, dear. Illion is pretending he knows something about science again. This is the same guy who insists that Darwinian evolution always results in a competitive struggle for survival between species. (It doesn't.)
What do Christians think about artificial life? Suppose scientists really started from mere chemicals like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen etc. and used simple physical means like heating, mixing etc. to make a self-reproducing cell having some kind of genes. Would that require Christians to change their beliefs?
John Lesse: "Suppose intelligent agents intentionally started with mere chemicals and purposely using physical means managed to produce a self-replicating cell having some kind of genes. Would that require Christians to change their beliefs that biological life (and the entire physical sub-strata of biology) was intentionally created by an intelligent agent?"
Kind of answers itself, doesn't it?
I-pretend-to-integrity: "This is the same guy who insists that Darwinian evolution always results in a competitive struggle for survival between species. (It doesn't.)"
Of course, like all DarwinDefenders (and most 'atheists' and leftists), I-pretend will say *just anything*
Now, in actual fact, I-pretend can't produce any evidence that I have ever said such a thing (for I never have). At the same time, Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this.
But, as usual for DarwinDefenders, I-pretend is engaging in distraction. He's trying to distract the reader's attention from the fact that he needs to back-off his initial denial of my statement that "DNA is not in the driver's seat".
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot: "Oh, dear. Illion is pretending he knows something about science again."
Actually, Ilíon was simply making explicit some of the logical entailments of the Dawkins-Parrot's own assertion. Recall, while denying my claim that "DNA is not in the driver's seat", the Parrot insisted to the contrary that: "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome."
That statement, parroting Dawkins though it may be, is simply a bed-rock belief -- an article-of-faith -- of present-day Darwinism. (*)
Now, Gentle Reader, use your own mind -- never be intimidated by the (ignorant and/or dishonest) sneers of the DarwinDefender true believer -- is it not the case that if one says that "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome" then one has *also* said that whether one removes the 1n nuceus of an oocyte and replaces it with 2n DNA from a member of the species from which the oocyte came, or with 2n DNA from a member of an entirely different species, makes no difference? Has one not said that the resulting organism will be a clone of the orgamism from which the DNA was taken, and as indistinguishable from that precise organism, other than by age, as any two natural clones (which, amongst humans, we call "identical twins")?
Is it not, after all, the case that this Darwinistic article-of-faith that "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome" is the belief that is behind Darwinistic speculations that if complete DNA of some dinosaur species could be extracted from amber-fossilized blood-sucking insects that a living dinosaur might be cloned?
(*) Though, in that amusing DarLogic manner, the really, really true-believer DarwinDefender is able to both believe and dis-believe the statement, as circumstance requires.
========
So, once again, the precise point at dispute is this --
Me, knowing what I'm talking about, as per usual: "DNA is not in the driver's seat, it's not the program ... it's just the database."
I-can-haz-Darwins-parrot, saying *just anything*, as per usual: "I think you're wrong about that. The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome."
Distractions won't cut it, Parrot. This is what you asserted ... this is what your God-denial requires you to assert.
If you want to recant, then you must do it openly; I'm not going to allow you to change the subject.
"Now, in actual fact, I-pretend can't produce any evidence that I have ever said such a thing (for I never have). At the same time, Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this."
You're so good at digging up quotes from earlier posts, you should be able to find it yourself. It was only a couple of months ago. Are you now denying that you said what you said? But clearly you agree with it: " At the same time, Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this."
Here's a clue for you. Darwinists don't say this. The problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIFCoevolution.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406132056.htm
Now, as for your theory about how easy it should be to do cross-species cloning, I don't suppose you care to explain how this simple feat should be accomplished? No? I didn't think so. What passes for logical thought in your religion-adddled brain might sit well with your fellow theists, but it would never pass muster in a science lab.
"Would that require Christians to change their beliefs?" (John Moore)
No.
To Ilion:
Mosquitoes like Skep were buzzing around actual thinkers way back in the ol' B.C. days. Came across this passage just yesterday: "Do not argue with a chatterer [i.e., "troll"], nor heap wood on his fire." (Sirach 8:3) Useful advice, even unto this present day.
Bob,
My representation if Illion's scientific ignorance was accurate, and he confirmed it right here: " Darwinists -- going back to Saint Chuckie, himself -- have frequently said this."
Illion has his own idea of what is true, and no logic or evidence will move him off his perch of self-proclaimed irreproachability. Come to think of it, that sounds rather like you.
Hmm, is anyone really correct here?
skep: epigenetics. Gong out.
Illion: Darwin never thought interspecific competition was anywhere near important as environmental factors in natural selection. Gong out.
I wonder where I'm wrong here,seems everybody must be in this thread...
William,
you've never actually read any of Darwin's unreadable tome (*), have you? the whole point of which is that *all* of biology and biological history is explained by competition for scarce resources, with some races (i.e. 'varieties') being more favored in that universal competition, and thus supplanting the 'less favored'.
Concerning the Parrot's specific quibbleous accusation, Teh Maaster himself says, more than once in his unreadable tome, to paraphrase, "Should anyone find any instance of a species possessing a trait that aids or favors another species but does not advance its own interest in the Grand Competition, then my theory would be completely blown up."
He didn't mean it, of course ('it' being that he'd acknowledge his "theory" to be incorrect) -- he already knew about a few such instances. But he did say it.
Nor, apparently, have you paid any attention to what Darwinists themselves have said about competition (**). For example, the reason that Darwinists insist that what they call "altruism" (by which term they sometimes even refer to actual alturism) is *really* just sophisticated competition is because competition is all Darwinism has.
When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer. Darwinism has one nail: competition. Thus, *everything* is, in Darwinistic terms, competition, whether directly or indirectly.
Perhaps you could find something more useful to do with your gong? Especially seeing that this competition distraction was introduced specifically as a distraction. Else, someone may think you're just trying to demonstrate I Corinthians 13:1.
(*) quite understandable, it *is* unreadable, after all.
(**) quite understandable, as in their next breath they'll assert exactly the opposite of what they just asserted.
William:
epigenetics. WTF? Gong out yourself, dude.
Illion:
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. You can quote-mine Darwin, but it doesn't mean you understand what he is saying. Did you not read the words immediately before "in the Grand Competition"? Do you have any inkling what he is saying? Did you not read the article I cited on Evolution 101? You know, the one that discusses cooperative survival mechanisms?
But if you insist that this is just a distraction, why don't we return to the original ridiculous claim you made in an ill-advised effort to make yourself sound scientifically literate. Go ahead and explain the scientific basis for your statements:
"If this were true, then certain things *have* to follow from it; non-exhaustively:
1) cross-species cloning of eukaryotes will be no more difficult that intra-species cloning;
2) when a cross-species clone is produced, the resulting organism will be indistinguishable from any member of the species from which the DNA was taken;"
Here is an interesting 38-minute lecture: Oxford British biologist Denis Noble debunks neo-Darwinism (*). The part immediately relevant to the Dawkins Parrot's insistence upon disputing what I'd said at the beginning, merely because his (false) metaphysics demands that it be true that "The organism is nothing more than a vehicle, driven by the DNA, that provides the means (sometimes very elaborate) for replication of the genome" is in the section from 20:32-29:38 (or skip to the 25:40-27:53 marks to skip some preliminary info).
On the other hand, Mr Noble is incorrect at the 3:20 mark when he says, "And then around 1900, there was the integration of Mendelian inheritance, that is discrete inheritance with evolutionary theory ..." So, since he's wrong about that, perhaps he's also wrong when he says that Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" meme is false.
What really happened is that when Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900, everyone except the Darwin True-Believers thought that 'discrete inheritance' had put paid to Darwinism. It took the DarwinDefender True-Believers until about 1930 to formulate the idea of "random mutations" in a way that seemed to make sense -- this is why 'modern evolutionary theory' is called 'neo-Darwinism' and "the modern synthesis".
As 'modern evolutionary theory' is the stale 19th century metaphysical ramblings of a Victorian-era lay-about, with a slight gloss added in the 1930s to disguise a glaring problem (**), perhaps it might better be called "the moderne synthesis".
The fact is, 'modern evolutionary theory' is today in America the state sanctioned Atheist Creation Myth, not because of some nowhere-to-be-seen "mountains of evidence" that useful-idiots, such as the Dawkins Parrot, are forever prattling on about, but rather because politically powerful atheists *need* it to be true.
As is sometimes said by the Chinese, paraphrasing: "in China (where the recorded lecture took place), one is allowed to criticize Darwin, but not Marx; whereas in America, one is allowed (however grudgingly) to criticize Marx, but not Darwin".
Won't the world be such a much nicer place when *both* those stale 19th century expressions of materialistic reductionist imperialism are tossed onto the Trash Heap of History to join the unlamented third expression (Freudianism) already there?
(*) he shows -- using actual science (for 'modern evolutionary theory' is not, and never was, a scientific theory) -- that each of the key dogmas of neo-Darwinism is factually false.
(**) which seems to be a strategy 'inherited' from Himself.
So after a week, you haven't answered the question: what is the scientific justification for your claims? You have none. Instead, you divert to the groundless accusation that Darwin can't be criticized by the followers of religious Darwinism. But this is nothing but another myth perpetrated by creationists like yourself. The myth has been dealt with. It's time you get a grip on some factual information, not just your asinine myths.
Post a Comment