"Nature Couldn't Have Created It"

[Dragonfly]

If man cannot create biological life then nature couldn't have created it

Well this is truly interesting indeed.

Care to flesh this one out a bit more?
Put some foundational thoughts around this philosophy?
Shore it up with something of substance?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Spoiler alert:

*crickets*

 

[Dragonfly]

Spoiler alert:

*crickets*

I hope not.

It's one of the most unique things I've seen him post in quite some time.

 

[mrjurrs]

Man has created biological life.
"Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known."

Artificial Life Forged in a Lab? Scientists Create Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life. Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and div

scitechdaily.com

 

[DrewPaul]

Little Nipper: If man cannot create biological life then nature couldn't have created it

If man using intelligence copies what nature is alleged to have caused using no intelligence, plan or design then he may be able to cause biological life to exist. We learn many things from mindless natural forces. They teach, we learn.

 

[DrewPaul]

Man has created biological life.
"Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known."

Artificial Life Forged in a Lab? Scientists Create Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life. Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and div

scitechdaily.com

Some will argue a synthetic cell is merely (by manipulation) causing it to mimic real biological cells. Reading the entire article its not suggesting this is how natural forces caused life to exist. Its about how scientists using intelligence can mimic an actual cell.

 

[mrjurrs]

Some will argue a synthetic cell is merely (by manipulation) causing it to mimic real biological cells. Reading the entire article its not suggesting this is how natural forces caused life to exist. Its about how scientists using intelligence can mimic an actual cell.

The same people who think the fetal heartbeat in abortion arguments come from a heart?

 

[Allan]

Well this is truly interesting indeed.

Care to flesh this one out a bit more?
Put some foundational thoughts around this philosophy?
Shore it up with something of substance?

There are very good theories.

But setting aside science, which @LittleNipper probably finds inconvenient or too much reading, there's a logical flaw with his statement.

He probably doesn't read philosophy either so imma just going to point it out.

If man cannot create biological life then nature couldn't have created it.

His premise doesn't support his conclusion. Not only that but as has been pointed out earlier by @mrjurrs his premise on its own is incorrect.

 

[DrewPaul]

The same people who think the fetal heartbeat in abortion arguments come from a heart?

I don't see the connection and I don't know about the veracity of that claim...

 

[Mulefoot]

Man has created biological life.
"Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known."

Artificial Life Forged in a Lab? Scientists Create Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life. Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and div

scitechdaily.com

What they did wasn't "creating biological life"

They took already life and replace the cell with a synthetic genome.

 

[DrewPaul]

There are very good theories.

But setting aside science, which @LittleNipper probably finds inconvenient or too much reading, there's a logical flaw with his statement.

I read from your article...the title is very misleading.

Also crucial are the elements important to life. For us, these are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. But there are several scientific mysteries about how these elements wound up together on Earth. For example, scientists would not expect a planet that formed so close to the sun to naturally incorporate carbon and nitrogen. These elements become solid only under very cold temperatures, such as exist in the outer solar system, not nearer to the sun where Earth is. Also, carbon, like gold, is rare at the Earth’s surface. That’s because carbon chemically bonds more often with iron than rock. Gold also bonds more often with metal, so most of it ends up in the Earth’s core. So, how did the small amounts found at the surface get there? Could a similar process also have unfolded on other planets?

The article is all about how the conditions occurred just for the ingredients necessary for inert matter to turn into living matter. All the ingredients needed for life to possibly happen come from second or third generation stars that formed from the matter ejected and created in a super nova. The universe was built with the laws of physics that would cause stars that go super nova to create exotic matter.

I see they're still touting Miller Urey discovery that didn't lead anywhere.

 

[mrjurrs]

I don't see the connection and I don't know about the veracity of that claim...

The connection is people believing something 'scientific' that is untrue.

Why do you find the source lacks veracity?

 

[mrjurrs]

What they did wasn't "creating biological life"

They took already life and replace the cell with a synthetic genome.

Did the cell grow and divide before scientists got involved? How about after?

 

[DrewPaul]

The connection is people believing something 'scientific' that is untrue.

There is a lot of that going around. Advice given out during the pandemic was alleged to be following the science even before there was any solid scientific data on Covid. Science is committed to the philosophical belief all explanations must be naturalistic explanations. Most of the theories regarding the existence of the universe though considered scientific are little more than 'just so' stories.

Why do you find the source lacks veracity?

I don't know if it lacks or not. I'm not familiar with the claim. I do know you can see a heart beat with an ultrasound.

 

[mrjurrs]

There is a lot of that going around. Advice given out during the pandemic was alleged to be following the science even before there was any solid scientific data on Covid. Science is committed to the philosophical belief all explanations must be naturalistic explanations. Most of the theories regarding the existence of the universe though considered scientific are little more than 'just so' stories.


I don't know if it lacks or not. I'm not familiar with the claim. I do know you can see a heart beat with an ultrasound.

Then what you know is wrong. At the time the first fetal heartbeat is heard (or seen), there is no heart there.

"Cardiac tissue starts to pulse at around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy, registering as a heartbeat on the ultrasound, though the heart has not developed yet. Also, it may be possible to see the first visible sign of the embryo, known as the fetal pole, at this stage."

When does a fetus have a heartbeat? Timing and more

The heart of a fetus starts beating in the fifth week of pregnancy, and it may be detectable on a transvaginal scan. Learn about the timing, methods, and more.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Fetal pole-"The fetal pole is a thickening on the margin of the yolk sac of a fetus during pregnancy. It is usually identified at six weeks with vaginal ultrasound and at six and a half weeks with abdominal ultrasound. However, it is not unheard of for the fetal pole to not be visible until about 9 weeks."

 

[watsup]

Little Nipper: If man cannot create biological life then nature couldn't have created it

If man using intelligence copies what nature is alleged to have caused using no intelligence, plan or design then he may be able to cause biological life to exist. We learn many things from mindless natural forces. They teach, we learn.

Gee, how did I know that DrewPaul would bring the very same inanities to this thread as he has done to all the other ones for months now. Way too easy to predict.

 

[watsup]

Most of the theories regarding the existence of the universe though considered scientific are little more than 'just so' stories

As opposed to those who believe that there is or was some sort of super-creature who simply “created” the almost infinitely mysterious universe? Uh-huh.

 

[Mulefoot]

Did the cell grow and divide before scientists got involved? How about after?

Yes and yes.

 

[NWO_Spook]

As opposed to those who believe that there is or was some sort of super-creature who simply “created” the almost infinitely mysterious universe? Uh-huh.

Yeah, at some point one has to objectively assess the credibility of science, as opposed to that of religious mythology.

 

[mrjurrs]

Yes and yes.

Quote your source.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Yes and yes.

Don't worry. Scientists will create life from molecules soon enough. Then they will create a new species from scratch. Then several, capable of reproducing. Science only moves in one direction.

 

[Mulefoot]

Quote your source.

It's from your source....

"They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome."

 

[Mulefoot]

Don't worry. Scientists will create life from molecules soon enough. Then they will create a new species from scratch. Then several, capable of reproducing. Science only moves in one direction.

Doubtful anything meaningful. Before we ever get a chance, AI will turn the lights off when it's done with this place.

 

[mrjurrs]

It's from your source....

"They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome."

That doesn't indicate the cell was growing. The cell didn't begin growing until the synthetic DNA was added.

 

[Mulefoot]

That doesn't indicate the cell was growing. The cell didn't begin growing until the synthetic DNA was added.

What do you mean "growing"? They were dealing with natural host mycoplasma cells that were not lab made. They destroyed the natural DNA, and transplanted with synthetic DNA.