There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

originally posted by: quintessentone

Now, this scientific team headed by Drs. Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith and Clyde Hutchison have achieved the final step in their quest to create the first synthetic bacterial cell. ...

Keep in mind that the term "synthetic" (as used by the source you were quoting) implies that it was produced/created artificially (see definition 4a from Synthetic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Artificial means created/"produced by man" (dictionary.com). In that light, some funny contradictory titles show up if you search youtube for: James Tour Craig Venter.

Right below eachother:

Craig Venter unveils "synthetic life"

Craig Venter Says He is Not Creating Life

What is it now, is he unveiling artificially created life, or is he (or his team) not artificially creating life, therefore, he can't unveil such artificially created/synthetic life?

..., by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’* [KJ: “science”; Latin: scientia] By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

A little further below in the youtube searchresults, there is "J. Craig Venter: Designing Life". They really can't make up their minds can they?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

"Chance" is a word no one but the religious side uses as a counterpoint.

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Franklin Harold, evolutionist referring to the discussion about, but in practice mostly promotion of, evolutionary philosophies as "the dialogue of chance and necessity", in his book The Way of the Cell)

The word "chance" itself obviously is not a counterpoint, so perhaps one day you are willing to consider any counterpoint to the promotion of evolutionary or naturalistic philosophy that mentions the word "chance" without your prejudice towards "the religious side". After all, which side would that actually be in light of the admission at the end above, the dogmatism to force-fit evolutionary philosophies into the picture expressed in the first part, in spite of this serious lack of proper evidence and in spite of all the evidence we do have pointing in the other direction (creation, as admitted by Professor Lipson at the end of the article further below), and this history (playlist link below):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Also note the behaviour described in the quotation at 0:59 in the video above, which is described in more detail here (more so on the 2nd page):

Is It a Fact? (Awake!—1981)
If Not a Fact, What Is It? (2nd page)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

...

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. ...

...

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

... Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11. [whereislogic: i.e, chance]

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

What evidence is there for belief in creation? See the following article.

...

a reply to: whereislogic

Maybe its walking that ethical tightrope, so as to not alarm certain sectors of society. They created self-replicating life and isn't that what creation is really about? Whether the self-replication is viable may be another issue.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: whereislogic

Maybe its walking that ethical tightrope, so as to not alarm certain sectors of society. They created self-replicating life and isn't that what creation is really about? Whether the self-replication is viable may be another issue.

primary source

They used sequences of genes that are already in existence, and combined them in a way in a lab to allow it to technically be an artificially made lifeform. It is an impressive feat, but they were using code snippets from already living organisms. They weren't coding a new genome from scratch. This doesn't negate the need for a Creator, it further reinforces the necessity of intelligence in the formation of life

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
And Xtrozero also replied correctly, many atheists push back because the claim is usually made by people that they know it was the god they worship that did it.

You sidestep this by claiming it is some being called, Most High God, that many people worship but that is just a macguffin on your part.

There is no proof that this being exists and even if it did, there is no proof it asks to be worshiped or that it has any other characteristic attributed to it, except in the ideas created by man.

To prove the specificity of the Intelligent Designer is another debate. One step at a time please. Do you agree biological life is likely to have been designed by an intelligence?

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that is true but they created a self-replicating synthetic life form, that in itself is a newly designed life form, is it not?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that is true but they created a self-replicating synthetic life form, that in itself is a newly designed life form, is it not?

Yeah, but that doesn't discount a Creator. If anything it shows that intelligence can create life from splicing genetic code sequences together.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that is true but they created a self-replicating synthetic life form, that in itself is a newly designed life form, is it not?

Yeah, but that doesn't discount a Creator. If anything it shows that intelligence can create life from splicing genetic code sequences together.

It may also show that a divine Creator is not needed because within the natural universe a system of chemical processes and information codes for evolution of life or non-life exists as the 'nature' of all things. It just is as it must be within existing universal laws and not by divine creation.

originally posted by: whereislogic

There's a good reason he includes the phrase "in my experience" in there a couple of times, but I don't think this subject warrants a longer comment.

You gave a rather long-winded rely that I will accept but that point was a very small part of my actual main point, which was...

As I said the narrative pushed not only says you must think intelligent design is a possibility, but it is the Christian God too. People here use bible passages all the time in their prooftelling.

I personally do not see intelligent design as a religious event, can be for some, but as to the discussion overall I don't think it is good. So yes, let's talk intelligent design, but when I'm told I'm going to hell if I do not accept Jesus as my savior too then things might get a little strained to have a real conversation about it.

As I said before, people might be more open to intelligent design if the bible wasn't a tool in the conversations.

originally posted by: quintessentone


It may also show that a divine Creator is not needed because within the natural universe a system of chemical processes and information codes for evolution of life or non-life exists as the 'nature' of all things. It just is as it must be within existing universal laws and not by divine creation.

Using CRISPR technology to create living organisms is far beyond the capabilities of natural processes.

originally posted by: whereislogic

The word "chance" itself obviously is not a counterpoint, so perhaps one day you are willing to consider any counterpoint to the promotion of evolutionary or naturalistic philosophy that mentions the word "chance" without your prejudice towards "the religious side". After all, which side would that actually be in light of the admission at the end above, the dogmatism to force-fit evolutionary philosophies into the picture expressed in the first part, in spite of this serious lack of proper evidence and in spite of all the evidence we do have pointing in the other direction (creation, as admitted by Professor Lipson at the end of the article further below), and this history (playlist link below):

What prejudice to the religious side do I have? If there is no evolution of life then what is the answer, my friend?

The author uses the word chance to represent randomness. Before he said chance he said

mutations are unpredictable, faithfully replicated

The usage here is not that molecules are just floating around, and by chance, amino acids, and protein were formed with no fundamental processes. He uses the word chance to suggest the outcome is not known, but there are fundamental processes in place for it all to happen.

The reason it is a bad word is that your side takes it out of context in its use and wide brushes the whole topic with it and says it is all only by chance or pure luck that life happens at all and evolves.

This is why it is a poor choice to use because your side assumes it would also mean luck, but if one doesn't select a predetermined outcome then there is no luck/chance involved. If I gave you a jar of 1000 numbers and I said pick one and you pulled 263 there is no luck/chance in that pick. Now if I said pick 263 then there is 1 in a 1000 chance you pick it.

With life, there is no predetermined outcome, and that is a better way to say it than using the word "chance". As I said before if we rerolled earth 500 million years ago all life today would not be here but the world would still be full of life.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone


It may also show that a divine Creator is not needed because within the natural universe a system of chemical processes and information codes for evolution of life or non-life exists as the 'nature' of all things. It just is as it must be within existing universal laws and not by divine creation.

Using CRISPR technology to create living organisms is far beyond the capabilities of natural processes.

Yes they used CRISPR technology to rewrite it's code but then they replaced the organism's natural genome and created a new life form, self-replicating at that ! Can we attribute all that to rewriting DNA code? I'm not so sure. Everyone is using the term 'creation' relating to this achievement.

The Cambridge team set out to redesign the E coli genome by removing some of its superfluous codons. Working on a computer, the scientists went through the bug’s DNA. Whenever they came across TCG, a codon that makes an amino acid called serine, they rewrote it as AGC, which does the same job. They replaced two more codons in a similar way.

More than 18,000 edits later, the scientists had removed every occurrence of the three codons from the bug’s genome. The redesigned genetic code was then chemically synthesised and, piece by piece, added to E coli where it replaced the organism’s natural genome. The result, reported in Nature, is a microbe with a completely synthetic and radically altered DNA code. Known as Syn61, the bug is a little longer than normal, and grows more slowly, but survives nonetheless.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone




Yes they used CRISPR technology to rewrite it's code but then they replaced the organism's natural genome and created a new life form, self-replicating at that ! Can we attribute all that to rewriting DNA code? I'm not so sure. Everyone is using the term 'creation' relating to this achievement.

This is not really shocking though, they inserted all the necessary genes for self-replication. It's not as though they created a whole new genome coding for all different proteins that allowed the persistence of life.

originally posted by: cooperton
To prove the specificity of the Intelligent Designer is another debate. One step at a time please. Do you agree biological life is likely to have been designed by an intelligence?

No, the intelligent designer hasn't been proven to exist, mutations have.

You are literally putting the cart before the horse to justify your belief in god.

originally posted by: daskakik

No, the intelligent designer hasn't been proven to exist, mutations have.

Mutations to create the diversity of life has not been proven.

originally posted by: cooperton
Mutations to create the diversity of life has not been proven.

That is why I said just mutations.

They do exist, which is stronger proof than what you have for your apex creator.

originally posted by: cooperton
Using CRISPR technology to create living organisms is far beyond the capabilities of natural processes.

But it also shows you don't have to be a divine being existing outside of time and space to do it.

originally posted by: daskakik

But it also shows you don't have to be a divine being existing outside of time and space to do it.

But mutations haven't been shown to be able to create the diversity of life, as shown in the OP

a reply to: cooperton
That is only if you throw chance out of the picture and you do that to bolster your religious argument.

Maybe it was aliens or panspermia that caused the spark and diversity here on earth.

We don't know.

originally posted by: daskakik
That is only if you throw chance out of the picture and you do that to bolster your religious argument.

If something is thermodynamically impossible it doesn't matter how much time has elapsed, it will not happen.

Maybe it was aliens or panspermia that caused the spark and diversity here on earth.

We don't know.

I think that is a step in the right direction from dumb chance.. intelligence is needed to make designed systems

a reply to: cooperton
You have not proven that it is thermodynamically impossible, just that it takes time or dumb luck.

Also, it isn't a step in any direction, it is where I have been from the start. If it was panspermia it was still dumb luck from somewhere else and aliens might be advanced but they are not "God" with a capital G.