The Law of Biogenesis

[Don Fanucci]

Wow, we already discussed the distinction we make between the two sciences here: http://www.worthychr...p?/topic/137994

That was in April, and there you also seemed to treat the distinction as invalid because they're not "scientific terms". Did you really forget that discussion?

Yes, thus affirming my lack of enthusiasm for the distinction.

We've discussed that "Creationists don't do their own research" objection in the past as well. I find this objection strange because if only people who are doing the research are allowed to comment on that research, then how do you handle peer review? Peer review is supposed to be scientists commenting on other scientists' work while not being involved with that work. So, what's good for the goose, must be good for the gander, not so?

You've misrepresented peer review. The key word is "peer", as in other experts in the field. In fact, even in science, when non experts comment of a new research discovery, it can lead to all sorts of problems, so the criticism is not soley targeted at creationists. Its targeted at anyone who has little knowledge of the subject they are critiquing, and frankly, that applies for any discipline including religion.

This appears to be a sort of go-to argument for you, but how does any of this address the differences between how origins science and operational science deals with- and presents to the public?

I think you are interchanging commenting vs being taken seriously (as in addressing critical comments). Past interactions of scientists and creationists have been negative as creationists have no interest in getting facts correct or following any sort of guidelines for debate. When you read of such interactions, you'll see terms like "quote clipping". This is a creationist technique, not a biologist technique, and it is akin to fraud, deceit, slander, or outright lying. Even people who do have scientific skills, ie, Michael Behe, just have no interest in dealing with criticism. In science you need to rebut it, corrrect, or otherwise address critical comments or move on to something else.

Everyone wants to win the next Nobel, and if evolution were ever proved false, or creationism true, that person would't get a Nobel, they'd gather all the existing ones and give them to him/her.

You can't possibly be that naive?

Do you think disproving evolution would be a major or minor discovery?

[Don Fanucci]

Ah, yes, controlling the variables, you do have a good point. However there is a difference between controlling the variables and constructing something.

Controlling the variables would be taking all the base materials that form DNA, mixing them in the correct amounts, and letting them sit within a controlled environment.

This would be akin to taking various sands, and rocks, and water, putting them in a container and applying some force. Doing such you could replicate the raw materials and environmental factors needed to make sedimentary stone. That is controlling the environment. .

What Venter did, was take the chemicals, and assembled them into a DNA strand. This is not controlling the environment, this is taking a direct hand in what happens, and forcing it along a pre-planned goal. He did not mix the chemicals, and add heat, light, pressure, things that would be found in nature sans life, he took them, used a computer to set a blueprint and then built the DNA strand, bit by bit. This is way more intrusive then simply "controlling the environment!" This is more like writing a blueprint, that you reversed engineered, from an existing house, then took the materials and built your own house. Obviously if you were walking out in the hills and found a house you would never assume that since wood and stone existed there naturally, that they self assembled into a house.

As I've said, Venter was not trying to replicate abiogenesis, he was trying to create a living organism. Replicating abiogenesis would be exceedingly difficult.

No he did not. DNA in and of themselves are not alive. They are the program for life. Think of a living cell as a computer. You may take the computer, wipe Windows off of it and replace it with Linux.

This is what he did. He wrote a new program for an existing cell, he then removed the existing cell's original program, and replaced it with his own.

You would be absolutely correct if he recoved the geneome from bug#1 and stuck it into bug#2. In fact, he created from scratch the genome for bug#1 and put it into bug#2, then showed that the resultant organism was alive because of the genome that he made.

So its more like he took mastodon DNA reversed engineered it, made a copy of it, with his own additions, and then replaced that DNA with elephant DNA to produce a mastodon.

He still did not create life, and he did not prove one thing towards life arising from non life.

So as you see, what you stated is not true. There has been life arising from non life, it has never happened.

I think I see what you are hung up on. You want someone to take random deoxyribonucleotides and get a living organism out of it. Evolution goes from A--->Z via B, C, D, E, etc. Creationists insist it should be start with (A) random nucleotides and in one step, arrive at (Z) functional organism. That is not evolution.

[Isaiah 6:8]

As I've said, Venter was not trying to replicate abiogenesis, he was trying to create a living organism. Replicating abiogenesis would be exceedingly difficult.

Seems to me all he did was reprogram a living cell.

You would be absolutely correct if he recoved the geneome from bug#1 and stuck it into bug#2. In fact, he created from scratch the genome for bug#1 and put it into bug#2, then showed that the resultant organism was alive because of the genome that he made.

No read the paper he took a living organism injected it wit the dna he created and that DNA replaced the original host DNA. It was alive before it had it's DNA altered.

He did not build a computer, he simply replaced windows with Linux. It worked before as a windows machine now it works as a Linux machine. It's still a computer and no one in there right mond would claim that you bult a whole computer when all you did was replace the program.

I think I see what you are hung up on. You want someone to take random deoxyribonucleotides and get a living organism out of it. Evolution goes from A--->Z via B, C, D, E, etc. Creationists insist it should be start with (A) random nucleotides and in one step, arrive at (Z) functional organism. That is not evolution.

Nope I never said that. I an just stating your claim about life being created by a man in a lab is false.

There leaves the problem that life in no way has been seen coming from non life. Ever.

[MorningGlory]

Nope I never said that. I an just stating your claim about life being created by a man in a lab is false.

There leaves the problem that life in no way has been seen coming from non life. Ever.

[Don Fanucci]

Seems to me all he did was reprogram a living cell.

Can you hold a computer program in your hand?

No read the paper he took a living organism injected it wit the dna he created and that DNA replaced the original host DNA. It was alive before it had it's DNA altered.

I'm not sure you are grasping how the experiment was done. The native DNA is gone--it is destroyed and 100% replaced by a new genome, not an alteration of the old one. There is no residual DNA from the old genome.

He did not build a computer, he simply replaced windows with Linux. It worked before as a windows machine now it works as a Linux machine. It's still a computer and no one in there right mond would claim that you bult a whole computer when all you did was replace the program.

See my comment above. But I'll answer my own question. Computer code is softeware, it is not a physical entity. It can be sent over wires, through the air. This is not the case for DNA. DNA has mass.

There leaves the problem that life in no way has been seen coming from non life. Ever.

How do you define life?

[Isaiah 6:8]

Can you hold a computer program in your hand?

now your being facetious. I am using the computer program illustration as that is what Venter used as well. Because all a computer program is simply ones and zeros, off and on. Using that yes, you could build a computer program from same material as DNA actually and hold it in your hand.

I'm not sure you are grasping how the experiment was done. The native DNA is gone--it is destroyed and 100% replaced by a new genome, not an alteration of the old one. There is no residual DNA from the old genome.

I understand. Altered in this sense I meant replaced. However again the native DNA is replace 100% you now admit that. You first said that it was an empty shell, then you said that it was alive because the DNA, now you finally admit that it was alive before its DNA was replaced.

You see, you keep making untrue statements, that you change when proven wrong.

Fact, the original organism was alive before the tampering. It was alive with out the new DNA, You said it was alive because the DNA. The new, manufactured DNA replaced the DNA and maintained the life that was already there. He did not take a dead cell, add DNA and have it live.

See my comment above. But I'll answer my own question. Computer code is softeware, it is not a physical entity. It can be sent over wires, through the air. This is not the case for DNA. DNA has mass.

Again using Venter's terms, he used the same terms, and by definition DNA is the code of life. Mass or not, is not the issue. You are seeming to grasp at straws here. You see, Cells are not computers either. You are attacking the illustration, not the point of the illustration, this shows you have not a leg to stand on. You see, I am addressing the following statements.

All observations have shown that life comes only from life.

Nope. Read up on Craig Venter. Very cool seminar by the way. Four bottles of chemicals, a computer, and voila.

You are claiming that Craig Venter created life. You said read up on him, and I did. Turns out your statement and a few subsequent statements turned out to be patently false. Such as you stating

It was DNA. Except for viruses, RNA generally does not exist as long molecules, and it wasn't injected into a living organism, it was injected into an empty membrane.

This was simply untrue. It was a full living bacteria, that he injected.

You see, I may not be an expert on DNA. but I am a good researcher, and I learn by reading. I then watched the a few videos on what he said and used the same illustration he did, and your attacking me for using it. That means that you don't think he knew what he was talking bout.

So no, life has never come from non life. He did not build the cell and add the DNA. He did not even do Frankenstein and bring life to dead tissue. He simply reprogrammed another living organism by swapping out its DNA.

How do you define life?

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

http://www.biology-o...ionary/Organism

[Don Fanucci]

now your being facetious. I am using the computer program illustration as that is what Venter used as well. Because all a computer program is simply ones and zeros, off and on. Using that yes, you could build a computer program from same material as DNA actually and hold it in your hand.

Actually I'm not. The code is digitial and has no physical component to it. You are mixing up the matrix that carries the code (CD, memory stick, hard drive). That is the difference. The DNA is the code, but its physical form also influences how the code functions.

I understand. Altered in this sense I meant replaced. However again the native DNA is replace 100% you now admit that. You first said that it was an empty shell, then you said that it was alive because the DNA, now you finally admit that it was alive before its DNA was replaced.

You see, you keep making untrue statements, that you change when proven wrong.

No actually I keep leaving out the details and framing terminology in layman's terms. Guilty as charged, but when I explain in correct scientific detail, and/or provide a reference, I get dinged for being a technical smarty pants. If I had explained how methylation works (the technique that was used), would that have suited you? In fact, it was recently implied that I use technical terminology in an attempt make me look smart and trap lay folks into looking like idiots, so I'm kind of stuck no matter what I use to explain science.

[Don Fanucci]

This was simply untrue. It was a full living bacteria, that he injected.

How do you define life?

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

http://www.biology-o...ionary/Organism

Viruses function precisely by injecting DNA into a cell, which takes over the cellular machinery to produce more viruses. Sounds pretty much like what Venter did, with the exception that Venter's DNA, which he assembled de novo from inanimate chemicals, in a specific sequence, destroys the resident genome. So he created life (a living organism) according to your definition, no?

[LuftWaffle]

One problem with your analogy. The painting is not alive, nor is it functional. The difference between animate and inanimate.

No, that's not really a problem with my analogy. I have adequately explained what the analogy is analogous of. Any analogy, by definition will be different to the real thing, and merely seeking out irrelevant differences does not make an analogy problematic.

Actually I was addressing the "life only comes from life" claim. Addressing abiogenesis is a much bigger hurdle.

Venter's experiment is not a case of life coming from non-life, unless you consider DNA to be intrinsically alive.

[LuftWaffle]

Yes, thus affirming my lack of enthusiasm for the distinction.

Yet, earlier you pretended not to know about the distinction.

*sigh* The games people play....

Fortunately reality does not conform to your enthusiams. Sticking your head in the sand, doesn't make that which you refuse to see, disappear.

Suppose I lack enthusiam for "evolution". Would you accept that as a valid objection to evolution?

You've misrepresented peer review. The key word is "peer", as in other experts in the field.

Which begs the question. If only those who agree with the current paradigm are to be considered peers, then "peer review" is a circular concept. Fact is you're running a rabbit trail. Your objection was that creationists don't do their own research, but "peer review" doesn't require those reviewing to be involved in the particular research they're reviewing. So in that sense if creationism is objectionable for critiquing from the sidelines (as you claim) then peer review should be objectionable for the same reason.

I think you are interchanging commenting vs being taken seriously (as in addressing critical comments). Past interactions of scientists and creationists have been negative as creationists have no interest in getting facts correct or following any sort of guidelines for debate. When you read of such interactions, you'll see terms like "quote clipping". This is a creationist technique, not a biologist technique, and it is akin to fraud, deceit, slander, or outright lying. Even people who do have scientific skills, ie, Michael Behe, just have no interest in dealing with criticism. In science you need to rebut it, corrrect, or otherwise address critical comments or move on to something else.

Rant much?

I'm bored...

Do you think disproving evolution would be a major or minor discovery?

It would be an unwelcome discovery. What happens to ideas that are unwelcome?