Suddenly there was life

[Collier]

I am not saying, misquoting, I am saying YES misrepresenting and misusing his work. I listened to the videos. The relationship to the computers and the DNA he is developing has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the dependence of life on whatever outside Venter's work. Venter is using computers as a tool to develop synthetic life forms. This dependent relationship is only related to his research project, and no more. It has absolutely no relationship to the concept that 'only life comes from life,' and Venter nowhere advocates this view nor does he advocate that his work repesents any evidence for this view.

I am looking into Venter's work more, it is interesting. My question to you is, How does Venter view the problem of abiogenesis in relation to his work?

You didn’t listen very well.

It has absolutely no relationship to the concept that 'only life comes from life,' and Venter nowhere advocates this view

The url for the second talk is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo

Begin listening at 21 minutes. A few seconds later Venter says, “A lot of people like to think in terms of genesis ... We’re using one of the key tenets of life: all life derives from other life.”

Let me repeat Venter’s exact words: “ALL LIFE DERIVES FROM OTHER LIFE.”

[bling]

Life as far as we can tell requires a verity (maybe as many as 80) proteins, RNA and/or DNA, some kind of cell wall, some way of taking in energy and converting it to cell usable energy, controlling production, getting rid of the waste and reproducing. (A virus does not need all of this self contained, but in the cells it uses to reproduce).
How all this could come together randomly in the right proportion in one little spot is way beyond believe, especially since protein production just does not happen randomly.

[shunyadragon]

You didn’t listen very well.



The url for the second talk is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo

Begin listening at 21 minutes. A few seconds later Venter says, “A lot of people like to think in terms of genesis ... We’re using one of the key tenets of life: all life derives from other life.”

Let me repeat Venter’s exact words: “ALL LIFE DERIVES FROM OTHER LIFE.”

False, he was describing and referring to process of his own work, and not that abiogenesis is not possible. This work he is doing has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the origin of life.

[Collier]

False, he was describing and referring to process of his own work, and not that abiogenesis is not possible. This work he is doing has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the origin of life.

What he SAID was, "We are using one of the key tenets of life: all life derives from other life."

"One of the key tenets of LIFE." That's LIFE he's talking about. ALL life. And just to make sure you understand that, he uses the word "all" in explaining what that key tenet IS:

"ALL LIFE DERIVES FROM OTHER LIFE."

If you can't understand that, Frank, I'm not surprised you didn't understand what he was saying about living computers. Those living computers are living bacteria. They are an absolutely essential part of the process.

[shunyadragon]

What he SAID was, "We are using one of the key tenets of life: all life derives from other life."

"One of the key tenets of LIFE." That's LIFE he's talking about. ALL life. And just to make sure you understand that, he uses the word "all" in explaining what that key tenet IS:

"ALL LIFE DERIVES FROM OTHER LIFE."

If you can't understand that, Frank, I'm not surprised you didn't understand what he was saying about living computers. Those living computers are living bacteria. They are an absolutely essential part of the process.

I understand it very well. They are an essential process in his research. His research has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with abiogenesis. Can you show how his research is related to the falsification of the processes of abiogenesis?

[Collier]

I understand it very well. They are an essential process in his research. His research has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with abiogenesis. Can you show how his research is related to the falsification of the processes of abiogenesis?

Do you remember writing (emphasis is mine):

Venter is using computers as a tool to develop synthetic life forms. This dependent relationship is only related to his research project, and no more. It has absolutely no relationship to the concept that 'only life comes from life,' and Venter nowhere advocates this view ...

What he SAID was, "ALL LIFE DERIVES FROM OTHER LIFE." That is exactly the view he advocates. Whether he's right or not, whether you like it or not, he definitely advocates this view.

[shunyadragon]

Do you remember writing (emphasis is mine):


What he SAID was, "ALL LIFE DERIVES FROM OTHER LIFE." That is exactly the view he advocates. Whether he's right or not, whether you like it or not, he definitely advocates this view.

What HE SAID has absolutely nothing to do with. DOES HIS RESEARCH falsify or in any other way involve the origin of life. NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please do not troll for individual quotes out of context of the research on abiogenesis or the origins of life. It is absolutely nonsense to do this to justify your religiously biased position.

[Sparko]

shuny are you arguing that life on earth did not come from or require God? so what did God do?

what kind of theist are you?

[Collier]

When Venter said, "All life derives from other life," he was stating what he considers to be a "BASIC PREMISE OF LIFE". Remember?

So you were wrong in stating that "Venter nowhere advocates this view." [Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of "basic".]

Now, I intend to leave this pointless exchange and go on to some of the other things that Venter said in his talk. All of it is fascinating.

[franktalk]

I enjoy reading about all the unity in the bio field. When I became a Christian two years ago I had many conversations with what I thought were Christians but after a few questions I had my doubts. Then after additional questions my doubt went away and I was witness to false beliefs and strong egos. But coming from a background in the sciences I had the impression that data lead the field and polite discussions abound. Well, what really happened was I was exposed to the public face of science not the real under belly. Of course my eyes were opened and I see way more clearly now.

It is an obvious observation that life makes life. It is also an obvious observation that science which excludes God would not have God in the creation of life. In fact any silly theory is way better than a god option for the hard core science believer. Now one group of people will say "god did it", and another group will say it happened by accident. Of course neither side has any proof what so ever. For the people who believe in science god is silent. For those who believe in god. it appears that god did not leave a data trail for us to follow. So both sides argue over their own feelings but little else.

[Collier]

I enjoy reading about all the unity in the bio field.

So do I.

It is an obvious observation that life makes life. It is also an obvious observation that science which excludes God would not have God in the creation of life.

Agreed.

I also agree that there is no PROOF for either view. But there is considerable EVIDENCE available, and Venter’s work supplies a lot of it.

I’ve been listening to both talks again. It takes several “listens” to absorb it all. [BTW, the url for Venter’s first talk is now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5X6Qy772YU&NR=1]

The number and complexity of genes that have been sequenced in prokaryotic organisms is mind-boggling. But that is a subject that should be followed in a science forum.

In this forum, though, I can say that my faith in a living God does not depend on science. I believe that God created everything that is. HOW that creation took place is not a critical factor. I can find delight in scientific observations, without having my faith in God affected by the direction the evidence seems to be leading. Who knows where the evidence will lead tomorrow?

At the same time, I do find joy in the evidence that life is something more than molecules. Venter’s work is impossible without the help of LIVING ORGANISMS. It takes living bacteria to put the pieces of the chromosome together. It takes a living bacterium to “boot up” the chromosome once it is produced and corrected for errors. Dead bacteria are useless. They cannot recombine pieces of a chromosome, and they cannot “boot up” anything.

So I am free to repeat a statement that has not yet been challenged. Whatever-it-is that a living organism loses when it dies cannot be described in terms of physical and/or chemical properties.

And if that statement remains unchallenged, it leads to another: There are questions that science cannot answer.

[shunyadragon]

When Venter said, "All life derives from other life," he was stating what he considers to be a "BASIC PREMISE OF LIFE". Remember?

So you were wrong in stating that "Venter nowhere advocates this view." [Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of "basic".]

Now, I intend to leave this pointless exchange and go on to some of the other things that Venter said in his talk. All of it is fascinating.

Nowhere in Venter's work does he address a hypothiis for or against abiogenesis. Statement or assumptions by Venter mean absolutely nothing, because his research does not address the issue. You are selectively quote mining for your support for your biased religious point of view.

NO, Venter does not anywhere in his work address a hypothesis or proposal that would falsify abiogenesis.

I want to see good science with proposed theories and hypothisis concerning abiogenesis. You have presented nothing so far.

[Collier]

I just read an article from Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute, dated October 12, 2009. Here is the url:
http://www.biodesign.org/news/smalls...olecular-diode

This article fits very well with Venter's talks. I have already addressed that similarity on the thread "Life: What is it?" so I won't repeat it. It belongs in a science forum, anyway.

[franktalk]

So I am free to repeat a statement that has not yet been challenged. Whatever-it-is that a living organism loses when it dies cannot be described in terms of physical and/or chemical properties.

And if that statement remains unchallenged, it leads to another: There are questions that science cannot answer.

If we take parts from dead bacteria and assemble them into a working mechanism have we created life? I do not think so. I think we have mindless replicators on this planet and I don't associate them with life. If I built a machine that would build copies of itself is that life? No. But that argument is very subjective. It depends on how you define life. Where I happen to define it at a high level of system integration and a conscious mind others may define it as a simple replicator. I do not want to get into that discussion. It is a waste of time.

So scientist can place parts together and make new replicators. But the replicators on this planet have been doing this without man for a long time. What is the big deal about some guys doing what has been done trillions of time before but on automatic pilot. Where is the "newness" If left alone replicators seem to have an easy time making new copies. Man comes along and thinks the process is so complex if done outside of the replicator. Should that tell us something? As man proceeds down this path I assure you that we will regret that day. Man has a habit of taking anything good and turning it into a weapon. All of the assurances mean nothing to me. This genie is powerful and wants out of that little house it is stuffed into.

If I place my fears to the side I can see where it is worth the effort to make organisms that reprocess waste back into some kind of food or energy. Now some clever scientist who hates oil could decide that releasing a bioagent that eats oil would be a good thing. So what I consider good may not be what you consider good. So even the good side of this is subject to wide interpretation.

But maybe your point has to do with what is life is the bigger sense. Is it a group of parts or it it much more. Can man assemble a new man? Will that man have a soul? Will that man have a spirit? I think we get a clue from the Bible. Gen 6:1 thru 6:7 speaks of fallen angels messing around with the seed of woman. It was not a good thing. What if we start making machines with parts of men? If I install a human brain to run my air conditioner does it have rights? Is my air conditioner now alive? The slippery slope of microbes is nothing compared to using human parts in machines. What if some one duplicates the brain pattern of a human in digital form? Will it have a conscience? Does not the conscience come from the spirit given by God? Is not the spirit enhanced by the Holy Ghost? These are big questions and I do not want them decided by atheist.

[shunyadragon]

I just read an article from Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute, dated October 12, 2009. Here is the url:
http://www.biodesign.org/news/smalls...olecular-diode

This article fits very well with Venter's talks. I have already addressed that similarity on the thread "Life: What is it?" so I won't repeat it. It belongs in a science forum, anyway.

Interesting article, and yes, it is similar to Venter's. There still remains the problem that this work and Venter's work do not address the issue of abiogenesis or the natural origins of life, either in their hypothesis, theories or goals that their research covers.