The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why is nature much further ahead than human intelligence?
The breakthrough by Craig Venter this week in creating an artificial cell has been applauded by the scientific community. This was only a small step in creating a cell and only emphasises how little we know about the complexity of life.
Does it not prove that life never arose by accident or randomness?
Does it not prove that life never arose by accident or randomness?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Does it not prove that life never arose by accident or randomness?//
^ A premature conclusion from a baseless presumption ^
All that can be known with certainty about life can only be discovered and learned by studying the process of life. Before there can be a 'who' there has to be a 'how?' Life gave rise to consciousness and the means to gain knowledge of how life came to be.
Sorry . . . ain't no short cuts to understanding.
^ A premature conclusion from a baseless presumption ^
All that can be known with certainty about life can only be discovered and learned by studying the process of life. Before there can be a 'who' there has to be a 'how?' Life gave rise to consciousness and the means to gain knowledge of how life came to be.
Sorry . . . ain't no short cuts to understanding.
Venter's team didn't create a cell - they wouldn't know how to start doing that - they took an existing cell and replaced the DNA with some they had made in their lab. This itself was not (largely) invented but a replication of DNA which they had copied from another organism. The only modifications they made to the DNA were non-functional sections of amino acids which function as 'watermarks' to prove that the resultant organism is theirs rather than the native species.
The following analogy is probably not the best that could be imagined but has the benefit of being topical. If I take a Labour administration and replace it with a Liberal Democrat/ Conservative one, should I be surprised that
1 it works?
2 it does different things to the previous administration?
Equally, having done so would it be fair to claim that I have created a new form of government when all I have actually modified is the membership of the House of Commons leaving the entire structure of civil service administration/ policing/ defence/ judiciary etc unchanged - indeed I am utterly reliant on their being unchanged?
The miracle (which it was even in a non-religious sense) of life is in the detail. We concentrate on the DNA because that is sequenceable and where the money is or will be. (Venter and his team will be patenting anything they 'create'.) Make me a mitochondrion or a Golgi body or even a semi-permeable membrane, then we can start to talk about 'creating' life. In the meantime, while technically very clever, what we are discussing is a means by which the patenting of "created" organisms can be made legal and therefore lucrative.
The following analogy is probably not the best that could be imagined but has the benefit of being topical. If I take a Labour administration and replace it with a Liberal Democrat/ Conservative one, should I be surprised that
1 it works?
2 it does different things to the previous administration?
Equally, having done so would it be fair to claim that I have created a new form of government when all I have actually modified is the membership of the House of Commons leaving the entire structure of civil service administration/ policing/ defence/ judiciary etc unchanged - indeed I am utterly reliant on their being unchanged?
The miracle (which it was even in a non-religious sense) of life is in the detail. We concentrate on the DNA because that is sequenceable and where the money is or will be. (Venter and his team will be patenting anything they 'create'.) Make me a mitochondrion or a Golgi body or even a semi-permeable membrane, then we can start to talk about 'creating' life. In the meantime, while technically very clever, what we are discussing is a means by which the patenting of "created" organisms can be made legal and therefore lucrative.
Why is Nature so much further ahead?
Humans have had 150,000 years
Nature has had 4 billion years (on this planet alone)
I think we're doing pretty well.
Venter has done more than just a stright swap (as in dundurn's analogy) - that is cloning - Dolly the sheep
Venter has assembled his own custom DNA from off the shelf sequences and inserted that.
It is very similar to the way a virus works
Whether you think he has created life of not rather depends on whether or not you think a virus counts as being alive.
That's not an easy question but if you think a virus is alive then you have to say that he has create life
Humans have had 150,000 years
Nature has had 4 billion years (on this planet alone)
I think we're doing pretty well.
Venter has done more than just a stright swap (as in dundurn's analogy) - that is cloning - Dolly the sheep
Venter has assembled his own custom DNA from off the shelf sequences and inserted that.
It is very similar to the way a virus works
Whether you think he has created life of not rather depends on whether or not you think a virus counts as being alive.
That's not an easy question but if you think a virus is alive then you have to say that he has create life
vascop, the idea that extremely primitive life arose by accident has certainly been mooted in the scientifically establishment for a long time - it being the most obvious explanation when we dismiss creation as the absurdity that it is (and which doesn't explain anything anyway).
What is not random, of course, is how that very primitive life developed into modern complex plant and animal life. Evolution explains that very satisfactorily.
What is not random, of course, is how that very primitive life developed into modern complex plant and animal life. Evolution explains that very satisfactorily.
Sure life started by accident and randomness. If chance says it didn't start, then we wouldn't be here to witness life.
It's also a huge coincidence that each of your parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on met up with each other but the fact that you are reading this indicated they did.
It's also a huge coincidence that each of your parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on met up with each other but the fact that you are reading this indicated they did.
On a science board, please don't say we can make theories all we want. In science, a theory is an explanation for something we observe that has been peer reviewed and used, unfailingly, to make successful predictions. It's as close to an absolute truth as science allows us to get.
In science, you postulate a hypothesis when you are just guessing.
In science, you postulate a hypothesis when you are just guessing.
Nature does not involve a conscious effort but the top brains of the scientific community Venter had to spend years on the project. To get a Chimp to type in the Lord's prayer without errors would take millions of years. We know that to produce life on Earth would stretch to infinity if nature was left to its own devices.
chakka
Don't misunderstand me, I'm with you. My post was intended for rov whom I suspect is a creationist. He seems to regurgitate all that rubbish you find on creationist web sites where they try to discredit evolution by saying its a random process, which of course it isn't. This is a common misconception about evolution which creationists trot out whenever they get a chance.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm with you. My post was intended for rov whom I suspect is a creationist. He seems to regurgitate all that rubbish you find on creationist web sites where they try to discredit evolution by saying its a random process, which of course it isn't. This is a common misconception about evolution which creationists trot out whenever they get a chance.
Vascop its not about creationism. Its trying to act as a neutral observer. Even if you believed in evolution then something must have driven it. Putting a label on someone is just being a bigot and pretend you know all the answers. Their are huge gaps in evolution and a leap of faith in believing there is a God.
It may be proven that Darwin was just a tool to explain evolution, nobody says its all wrong but there are other factors to consider. Proceeding along a single track you are sure to hit the buffers.
It may be proven that Darwin was just a tool to explain evolution, nobody says its all wrong but there are other factors to consider. Proceeding along a single track you are sure to hit the buffers.
Ermm - where are the huge gaps in evolution?
What drove evolution is natural selection - At its simplests, a degree of randomness introduced by mutation, and those gene mutations that result in greater survivability preferentially passing on their genes to the next and subsequent generations. That refining "funnel", over millions of generations and billions of years, leads to the complexity and diversity of the life we see today.
As others have commented, Nature has had billions of years and millions of generations head start on us. Molecular and genetic engineering, decades only
No God required. No supernatural force required. No "driving force", apart from the non random funneling effect that is natural selection.
What drove evolution is natural selection - At its simplests, a degree of randomness introduced by mutation, and those gene mutations that result in greater survivability preferentially passing on their genes to the next and subsequent generations. That refining "funnel", over millions of generations and billions of years, leads to the complexity and diversity of the life we see today.
As others have commented, Nature has had billions of years and millions of generations head start on us. Molecular and genetic engineering, decades only
No God required. No supernatural force required. No "driving force", apart from the non random funneling effect that is natural selection.
There is a random element in evolution, but it a random variation on an existing state, not a randomness involving starting from scratch each time. It would take a chimp an incredible amount of time to type the lord's prayer randomly if it had to start from the beginning each time (there are 205,891,132,094,648 ways of getting 'OUR FATHER' wrong, even if you are only allowed capital letters and spaces), but if you can keep the correct letters and just add to them randomly, it's a LOT quicker.
Well put Tim. However to progress from past choices you would need a memory bank and some supervision in order that chaos theory is not the end result. This is evident in weather patterns where a small change in the climate can cause wild extremes. The degrees of freedom in creating species goes way beyond the possibilities of weather patterns.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
News92 mins ago
ChatterBank119 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.