I have one more question though and this is from a debate I had earlier: I am having a small debate on

playstation community about how a person can become God. She has directed me to the link and says
this: "If scientist can do expariments by recreating primordial earth in the lab and try recreating life using
chemicals not known to be in living organisisms then it's possible for me, whose to say I can't try?"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/
This is my first debate and I am a little lost and I have seen some of your comments and have liked them.
So could you please help me?
First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab
www.scientificamerican.com

Her whole point was that with Science and Technology, she could become God. If she learned as well the
genetic code and redid it to create a new being, wouldn't she be considered God. She also says that
because she mod games like Skyrim and creates new lands and program characters to do thing without
question, she should be considered God. But isn't this wrong? Modifying something just means that you
are taking another persons game and modding it, like someone having surgery to get rid of belly fat. As
well, with the genetic code, it isn't created anything but just modifying the original genetic code right?

Hi Justine,
Your opponent has a very straw man definition of God. Just because you were able to “synthesize” a life
by plagiarizing and manipulating ALREADY EXISTING genetic codes, does not follow you have already
created an alien life from scratch. You are correct in your argument. Actually, the idea of genetic
engineering has long been in practice since time immemorial. If the early people did not domesticate the
wolves, we don’t have dogs for pets today. The idea is basically the same: alter the genetic information
(naturally or by the lab) and you get new species. By her definition, everybody then is/was a God. We all
can cross breeds dogs.

The idea of God in Christian theology involves an ultimate creator of life and mind
(consciousness), matter, space and energy. Unless she could genetically induce a
big bang to create star systems and planets with perfect set of parameters and
natural laws that would allow for complex and intelligent life to exist and thrive,
then she could only be a god according to her own strawman definition of god. None
can genetically pop a rock into existence, let alone a star system with complex life
in it.

All they did was add a set of information into already existing genetic information with complete functioning biochemical pathways. and predictions can either be correct or incorrect. we can create genomes from .As to the idea of learning the genetic codes to create life. It’s scientism. It’s ignorance. but it is effective. Science does not account for something that is not there yet. That would need a whole lot level of intelligent manipulation. The engineered bacterium can only read and transcribe the information into the RNA. We are just learning to hold the pencil. assigned them new letters and inserted them in existing DNA. Even the predictions science make are descriptive (it explains natural phenomena) and not prescriptive (prescribes for what would occur). How good are we in “creating new life?” The Nature article featured by link she gave to you has this to say: “How good are synthetic biologists at writing useful biological instructions? We are getting better at synthesizing long stretches of DNA that can be inserted into a variety of organisms in which they will be read and -. You can only add something into something if that something is already there. Science can only make predictions. We cannot yet create an enzyme or a biosynthetic pathway that compares favourably with nature's engineering outputs. Creating a whole new proteins with new cell functions is an entirely different story—this they have yet to demonstrate.sometimes -. its smacks of excessive faith in science. G in our genomes which represents the four bases making up the amino acid sequence that forms the nucleotides). We are plagiarists. assigned it new letters (we only have A. for the sake of the argument. so that it can copy the alien information and adopt it into the genome. it is about engineering a bacterium that is able to copy DNA containing unnatural genetic letters. This is scientism. poor crafters of original literature. This is fallacious as it presupposes that 1) life could be created from scratch 2) genetics has a purpose which is to learn how to create life from non-life. T. This is not science. The lab experiment she linked you to is not about recreating the primordial earth (there is NO evidence for a pre-biotic earth!) in the lab. Nature's writing is intricate (some say convoluted and opaque). It is misleading to say that they have created a new (alien) life in this.” Another thing.acted on. All they did was manipulate the existing genomes and plagiarize the genetic information present in them. C. You did not create a new life by manipulating an existing life. You can only manipulate something into something if that something is already there. Prescribing she could create another life by learning how to manipulate and synthesize the genetic codes is an ignorant display of excessive faith in science. They tweaked the genomes of a bacteria. you did not author a new novel by plagiarizing an existing novel. But most of our writing merely rearranges passages lifted from the few genomes that we have read. Say.

Biology is more than genomes. For one. . And our moral traits are not evolutionary. human beings are more than a set of genomes—we are conscious and rational beings capable of moral choices. does this means that we can create complex and sentient life forms? No. The Body plans of organisms are not codified in their DNAs. Furthermore. Our capacity to distinguish right from wrong is not an intrinsic property of the amino acid sequence of nucleotides and proteins in our DNA. It is controlled by the development of zygote into full and living organism.scratch. the development of a body plan is not found in genomes.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful