Veritas
Posts:248
 | | 10/10/2007 6:09 PM |
 Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/10/2007 4:50 PM
The article doesn't say WHAT they built the DNA from. It says "built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals" and "Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome"
All of your quibbling doesn't change the fact that these scientists have figured our how to WRITE genetic code. They have the capabilities to create new species. And this is just the beginning. Give them a few years.
Wrong. Stitching together a chromosome from lab chemicals IS NOT an example of "scientists have figured our how to WRITE genetic code"; but rather that scientists have decoded "genetic code" to the point where they can assemble it with their intelligent little minds. This is remarkably UNnatural.
An example of WRITing genetic code would be creating a chromosome without any prior knowledge of the genetic code. This would require a sufficient grasp of the first principles and the language itself. Humans are nowhere near that level of knowledge with respect to the genome. DEcoding and coding are very different things and very different levels of phenomena. | | | |
|
|
|
Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/10/2007 6:21 PM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/10/2007 4:50 PM
As far as not knowing the workings of a cell.. Perhaps you should have a conversation with my degree.. in biology.. and genetics.. Thanks..
You let us know when you're degree talks, and then we'll do just that. Meanwhile, we're talking with you and there are things that are coming out that don't match with what you can retrieve from basically any encyclopedia.
All of your quibbling doesn't change the fact that these scientists have figured our how to WRITE genetic code. They have the capabilities to create new species. And this is just the beginning. Give them a few years.
They've had the capability for a long time to create a new species. Heck, even a tomato hybrid is a new species. Don't suggest though that anything was created from scratch. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
|
|
Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/10/2007 6:28 PM |
Alert | Are you saying that as long as scientists are using DNA or something like DNA to create new species, you will never accept that science because "god" made DNA?
No one is denying that this is a considerable achievement. What is not taken kindly is your creationism smack talk. Until scientists can engineer a bacteria, in a lab without any outside input, there is no defeat of anything like you were originally suggesting. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts:248
| | 10/10/2007 9:04 PM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/10/2007 4:50 PM
The article doesn't say WHAT they built the DNA from. It says "built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals" and "Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome"
All of your quibbling doesn't change the fact that these scientists have figured our how to WRITE genetic code. They have the capabilities to create new species. And this is just the beginning. Give them a few years.
This reminds me a cute little story/joke about a time in the future where humanity has reached a pinnacle of scientific knowledge. So much scientific knowledge that they are able to create a man using only dirt. Even more remarkable is that they finally figured out where God has been all of this time. So, they visit God one day in their space ship and inform Him that He is no longer needed because of the knowledge that humanity has amassed. So God says, "OK ... show me what you know."
The scientists excitedly respond with, "well God ... we can make a man from dirt". "See here ... if you take some dirt and..." God interrupts and says, "wait a minute! Get your own dirt." | | | |
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts:248
| | 10/10/2007 9:07 PM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/06/2007 6:31 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
Although they have to use an existing bacterial cell, they are still creating a new species. How long before creationists lose their "You can't create life from nothing" argument?
How long until you realize that "nothing" means "no thing at all"? In order to create from "nothing", scientists would need to create quarks, electrons, etc... or whatever is smaller than those elementary particles. In other words, "get their own dirt". | | | |
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts:248
| | 10/10/2007 9:14 PM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/08/2007 9:13 PM
Joe, that NOT at all what they did! A computer code is an abstract concept. DNA is a physical substance. This scientist created artificial DNA. The code of the nucleotide bases has nothing to do with the fact that they are made from synthetic materials.
Yes, but DNA would do nothing if it were not for the fact that it contains what scientists call "information". We quantify that information mathematically using a science known as Information Theory. From an Information Theoretic viewpoint, DNA is the same as computer code. It is an instruction set that the machine executes in order to do something. Though it is not a physical substance like carbon atoms, it is what gives DNA it's meaningful essence. No one is impressed with DNA because of its chemical constituents, but rather because it holds ALL of the assembly instructions necessary for building everything in the cell. | | | |
|
|
 |
Veritas
Posts:248
| | 10/10/2007 9:23 PM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/09/2007 12:12 PM
Your analogy still isn't correct. Its far too simplified.
You give me the recipe for a pretzel. I take it and eliminate unneeded ingredients. Then I go to my laboratory and create all new ingredients.. I make a new dough from man-made materials.. There's no flour here.. I make the rest of the ingredients the same way.. from synthetic materials. There's nothing natural in this pretzel. I have made a new pretzel.
I don't think that you understand the essence of a pretzel. What are its properties? Bow tie shape? Crunchy or soft? Salty? Other flavors? What if I use cheese wiz to make the shape of a pretzel? What is the function of a pretzel?
The structure and its subsequent function is what makes a pretzel a pretzel, a DNA molecule a DNA molecule, etc. What is that structure? What is that function? If we still have a double helix full of A's, T's, C's and G's that still contains all of the information that other molecular machines like RNA, ribosomes, etc. can interface with from with the enzymatic feedback system, then we still just have DNA. If it does not do ALL of that and more, then we have one of two things ... (1) a piece of junk "DNA" or perhaps a new thing that is useless. | | | |
|
|
|
bathbaby
Posts:37
| | 10/12/2007 2:40 PM |
Alert | | I like pretzels. | | | |
|
|
|
Noel
Posts:42
| | 10/14/2007 9:53 AM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 10/06/2007 8:47 PM I'm aware of that.. but it is only a matter of time.. I said "How long until".. 
Do you believe that one day a doctor will create life from NOTHING? What will that doctor use? Well it must be NOTHING for you to remain correct because life from nothing cant use any thing for its creation and once you use anything you see in this world then you have used the portions that God has made. You cannot create life from nothing. Maybe one day we will be able to do the monkey see monkey do of the small things God does. On this day when we can do this it would be shameful and lack intelligence to mock the one you copied. This is much like a man who works for a business about which he does not know anything. And over time his boss teaches him how the business works. Then after more time the person makes they're own business but does not credit the one who taught them nor do they give percentage. Instead they would just say, LOOOK WHAT I DID and take the knowledge as if it was the creation of they're own mind.
| | | |
|
|
|
Noel
Posts:42
| | 10/14/2007 9:57 AM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 10/10/2007 9:23 PM Posted By JillyBean on 10/09/2007 12:12 PM
Your analogy still isn't correct. Its far too simplified.
You give me the recipe for a pretzel. I take it and eliminate unneeded ingredients. Then I go to my laboratory and create all new ingredients.. I make a new dough from man-made materials.. There's no flour here.. I make the rest of the ingredients the same way.. from synthetic materials. There's nothing natural in this pretzel. I have made a new pretzel. What if you never had the first pretzel? Could you make a synthetic pretzel if you never had the original one. This is like saying because I put on new shoes that I have become a new person. You can mix the ingredients if you would like but you are still baking God's pretzel. | | | |
|
|
|
JasonY
Posts:1821
| | 10/15/2007 4:13 PM |
Alert | | Anyone ever seen the movie Gattica? Once we start cloning humans, watch out if you aren't blue-eyed, blonde, and perfect....... | |
"Your village called.........they're missing their idiot" | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/15/2007 4:54 PM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 10/10/2007 6:09 PM Posted By JillyBean on 10/10/2007 4:50 PM
The article doesn't say WHAT they built the DNA from. It says "built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals" and "Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome"
All of your quibbling doesn't change the fact that these scientists have figured our how to WRITE genetic code. They have the capabilities to create new species. And this is just the beginning. Give them a few years. An example of WRITing genetic code would be creating a chromosome without any prior knowledge of the genetic code. This would require a sufficient grasp of the first principles and the language itself. Humans are nowhere near that level of knowledge with respect to the genome. DEcoding and coding are very different things and very different levels of phenomena.
Did you actually READ the article?
It clearly states that these scientists have gone from reading code to writing code. IF they can create an artificial chromosome.. and said chromosome contains genes in which the specific base pair sequences were put in place by these scientists to make specific amino acids which in turn make specific proteins.. that translate to WRITING code. | | | |
|
|
|
Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/15/2007 5:00 PM |
Alert | | Instead of picking on Veritas' words, you could see what s/he meant is that the scientists did not author any code. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts:248
| | 10/15/2007 5:17 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/15/2007 4:54 PM
Did you actually READ the article? It clearly states that these scientists have gone from reading code to writing code.
And if I said that I have gone from walking on land to walking on water would you believe me? You completely missed the point that I made because you do not understand the difference between coding and decoding. They have essentially cut & pasted "the code" and have at best "edited" that code. That doesn't equate to WRITING code from scratch.
Posted By ilovesubway on 10/15/2007 4:54 PM
IF they can create an artificial chromosome.. and said chromosome contains genes in which the specific base pair sequences were put in place by these scientists to make specific amino acids which in turn make specific proteins.. that translate to WRITING code.
No. That means they copied the code ... there is a difference. It's way cool that they are able to do this sort of thing, but by no means have scientists CREATED anything, certainly not in the same sense that God CREATED stuff. At best, it is a remaking of something ... kind of like when a singer sings an old song that was once famous but it just doesn't measure up.
| | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/18/2007 7:30 PM |
Alert | | That's retarded.. That's like saying no human could ever author a book because they didn't invent the English alphabet. | | | |
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts:248
| | 10/18/2007 8:18 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/18/2007 7:30 PM
That's retarded.. That's like saying no human could ever author a book because they didn't invent the English alphabet.
Incorrect. You commit a category error by equating a representational system like the English language with the function of proteins that we humans use language symbols to represent in our science. Proteins perform a function as dictated by DNA and/or RNA ... English letters perform no such function.
Your comparison is not even like apples & oranges ... more like apples & blue.
If you pay close attention to the post I was responding to, that person misunderstood the impact of what was done by using the words "create" and "code". In both cases, that person was equivocating terms in way that misrepresented the facts of the article. | | | |
|
|
|