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?"
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
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?
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
We are plagiarists.
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. The engineered bacterium can only read and transcribe
the information into the RNA.
It is misleading to say that they have created a new (alien) life in this. You can only manipulate something
into something if that something is already there. poor crafters of original literature. Nature's writing is intricate (some say convoluted and
opaque). but it is effective. T. Science can only make predictions.
This is not science. We cannot yet
create an enzyme or a biosynthetic pathway that compares favourably with nature's
engineering outputs. It’s ignorance. All they did
was manipulate the existing genomes and plagiarize the genetic information
present in them. you did not author a new novel by plagiarizing an
existing novel. You did not create a new life by
manipulating an existing life. That would need a
whole lot level of intelligent manipulation. We are just learning to hold the pencil. assigned it new letters (we only have A.
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.
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 -. But
most of our writing merely rearranges passages lifted from the few genomes that
we have read. its smacks of excessive
faith in science. C. Say. All
they did was add a set of information into already existing genetic information with
complete functioning biochemical pathways. so that it can copy the alien information and
adopt it into the genome. Even the predictions science make are descriptive (it explains
natural phenomena) and not prescriptive (prescribes for what would occur). we can create genomes from
tweaked the genomes of a bacteria. This is scientism.”
Another thing. Science does not account for something that is
not there yet. Creating a whole new proteins with new cell functions
is an entirely different story—this they have yet to demonstrate. G
in our genomes which represents the four bases making up the amino acid
sequence that forms the nucleotides). and predictions can either be
correct or incorrect. for the sake of the argument.As to the idea of learning the genetic codes to create life.sometimes -. it is about engineering a
bacterium that is able to copy DNA containing unnatural genetic letters.acted on. 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. It’s
scientism. You can only add something into
something if that something is already there. assigned them new letters and inserted them in existing DNA.
human beings are more than a set of
genomes—we are conscious and rational beings capable of moral choices.
Furthermore. And our
moral traits are not evolutionary.
Biology is more than genomes. the development of a body plan is not found in genomes. does this means that we can create complex and sentient life forms? No.scratch. It is controlled by the
development of zygote into full and living organism. Our capacity to distinguish right from wrong is not
an intrinsic property of the amino acid sequence of nucleotides and proteins in our
DNA. For one. The Body
plans of organisms are not codified in their DNAs.