We atheists of the scientific bend have always argued that life , no matter how unique, no matter how simple or complex, is , at the most basic level, a chemical reaction or a long series of chemical reactions.

On the other side of the divide, the theists have always insisted that no matter how you combine chemicals, you can never get the breath of life because life, they insist, is a spiritual essence unconnected to chemical reactions. They claim that the breath of life is the special prerogative of the omni omni God.


The mystery of the origins of life in the universe is one that has defied simple scientific explanations.

But undeterred, science has, typical of its very nature, continued to ask and search , starting from positions of uncertainty to ever increasing positions of certainty.

Now, a new breakthrough is threatening to confirm the position that we have always held; that when the right chemical and environmental threshold is attained, anything is possible, including life.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/scientists-create-tiniest-life-form-yet-not-sure-what-it-is

Now, a new breakthrough is threatening to confirm the position that we have always held; that when the right chemical and environmental threshold is attained, anything is possible, including life.

Nothing in that article points to this.

So this thread is basically untrue. And you're basically lying.

Scientists Create Tiniest Life Form Yet, Not Sure What It Is

As the gene-manipulation industry grows, a breakthrough reveals how little we know about DNA.
Photographer: Jezper Klauzen/Getty Images
For years, DNA and computer operating systems served as clichés for each other: DNA is the “operating software” of living cells in the same way that system software is the “DNA” of a computer.
The problem with the comparison, as shown by research two decades in the making, is how much biologists still don't know about DNA, or genomes. That's an especially problematic development, given the industry sprouting up around genetic manipulation.

Genomics pioneer Craig Venter and more than 20 colleagues engineered a living microbe with a genome simpler than any seen in nature. In other words, they created a life form whose relative simplicity and modular design make it a platform that one day may be as easily manipulated as, say, software.

Setting aside fears of Blade Runner replicants running amok, the breakthrough revealed on Thursday in the journal Science may hold promise for a new era in medicine, industry, and energy.
“These cells would be a very, very useful chassis for many industrial applications, from medicine to biochemicals, biofuels, nutrition, and agriculture,” said Dan Gibson, a top scientist at both Venter’s research institute and his company, Synthetic Genomics Inc. Ultimately, the group wants to understand the tiny genetic framework well enough to use it as a biological foundation for more complex organisms that could address many of the world's ills.

Once each essential gene's function is identified, scientists can build an effective computer model of it; from there, they can simulate how best to go about “adding pathways for the production of useful products,” they wrote.
It won’t be easy, though. Venter has spent two decades trying to engineer a minimal genome, and today’s achievement reveals how much work there is to do.

Scientists have long theorized how many genes might be required for a simple, viable organism that could be used as a universal template. Many studies have tried to estimate the rock-bottom number by knocking out individual genes; they have settled on 250 to 300 or so. The original bacteria species that the Venter group worked on is already pretty tiny: M. mycoides is found in cow stomachs and has about 985 genes. The human genome has more than 20,000 genes. Golden Delicious apples have more than 57,000 genes. The new organism, nicknamed Syn3.0 by researchers? It has 473.


A prequel to today’s results came in 2010, when the team turned a different bacteria into
M. mycoides . They thought it would take an additional year to reach the minimal-genome breakthrough. Instead, five more years were needed to determine which genes the organism needed. Particularly time-consuming were lessons in how different genes work together. One gene might seem nonessential—until removing a companion proved it indispensable. One colleague likened the result to losing an engine on a 777: The plane can still fly, unless you lose the second one. Redundancy, it turns out, is essential to survival.

The most surprising result of their work—and perhaps the most sobering one for the rest of the field: The team still doesn’t understand what 31 percent of the essential genes do in even the simplest organism, to say nothing of a human genome. It's a development Venter called “very humbling.''
“We are probably at the 1 percent level in understanding the human genome,” said Clyde Hutchison III, a distinguished professor at the Venter Institute.

That lack of knowledge isn't standing in the way of entrepreneurs. Biology has been “hot and heavy” since the development of a molecular tool that makes gene editing easy, Hutchison explained. Scientists might be able to remove disease-causing genes or even determine a baby’s eye color. This technology, known as CRISPR/Cas-9, has alarmed many inside and outside the research community, who fear it may be used on the human genome before its effects are understood, with unforeseen results.

It’s hard to put a number on a group of tools and technologies as diverse as those traveling under the brand “synthetic biology,” but dozens of startups are developing or already selling products. The U.S. spent about $820 million on synbio research between 2008 and 2014. The majority of money since 2012 has come from the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), which in part funded the new research.

In the absence of a basic working knowledge of human DNA, Synthetic Genomics is working on otherwise-promising technologies, from growing organs inside pigs for human transplant to clean-water and energy co-production. The company is already a leader in lab technology that allows for fast and accurate DNA synthesis, Venter said.
Despite Venter's new accomplishment, there are several reasons why it may not instantaneously transform synthetic biology, cautioned George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. For one thing, it’s hard. Venter may have difficulty getting other researchers to build off his work, a time-honored way of advancing discovery. While others have made progress tinkering with yeast and E. coli genomes, the advent of easy-to-use gene editing technology may make the laborious rewriting of entire genomes, as Venter has done, less appealing.
That so many questions stand, however, shouldn’t detract from the his team’s long-fought accomplishment, said Church.

“This is the culmination of dozens of people’s work,” he said. “This should be celebrated.”

Joshthefirst:


Nothing in that article points to this.

So this thread is basically untrue. And you're basically lying.

What about this comment below from same passage.

But undeterred, science has, typical of its very nature, continued to ask and search , starting from positions of uncertainty to ever increasing positions of certainty.

Always endevour to read between the line.

Actually am not a bit surprice, this is the sort of brain chemistry from people who believe that unknowable and undemonstrable realms can exist out of nothing and remotely believed it very strongly

menesheh:


What about this comment below from same passage.




Always endevour to read between the line.

Actually am not a bit surprice, this is the sort of brain chemistry from people who believe that unknowable and undemonstrable realms can exist out of nothing and remotely believed it very strongly

you cannot realize by article I meant source. Lol. And you think I'm stupid eh?

Plaetton, this guy has disgraced what was left of this thread.

Joshthefirst:

Nothing in that article points to this.
So this thread is basically untrue. And you're basically lying.

Visit the link na.

Joshthefirst:
you cannot realize by article I meant source. Lol. And you think I'm stupid eh?

Plaetton, this guy has disgraced what was left of this thread.

Cognitive dissonance is upon you this early morning.

zeemahn:


Visit the link na.

I did. Unless the op changed it

Joshthefirst:
you cannot realize by article I meant source. Lol. And you think I'm stupid eh?

Plaetton, this guy has disgraced what was left of this thread.

Hoestly,You fail to understand the difference between demonstrated probability and falsehood. A conclusion is likely or most likely to be true don't give you any shroud of criteria to assert that such is technically flawed.That science have not yet gain the full knowledge of a scientific model; hence your assertion is that it is false.


Honesty is when you infer a position as regards to the stage of its understanding rather than saying ”yea, we've gain full understanding of how such works”. Science don't thread that path.


Retroactively, you have this presupposition that is blurring you from seeing the bigger picture of how science works.

Joshthefirst:
you cannot realize by article I meant source. Lol. And you think I'm stupid eh?

Plaetton, this guy has disgraced what was left of this thread.

Point of correction, I never meant that you are silly but that your capacity to process information is flawed. And still pretty hasty to conclude that it is false, therefore, there is no need to be happy for such a milestone reached in science.

Joshthefirst:
I did. Unless the op changed it

So whats false there? everything was clear.

I hate to say this

Hello Plaetton and all,

It is a welcomed development. Scientific principles are sane and we should follow science objectively no matter where it leads us.
I personally do not see how this breakthrough contradicts the idea/hypothesis of a primary being/ernergy who engineered the universes. It merely points to how a creator/creative cause may have proceeded.

Notwithstanding, every hypothesis including that of higher beings must be explored and tested according to available facts.

So well done scientists and may it not be used to further evil.

Greetings.

LoJ:
Hello Plaetton and all,

It is a welcomed development. Scientific principles are sane and we should follow science objectively no matter where it leads us.
I personally do not see how this breakthrough contradicts the idea/hypothesis of a primary being/ernergy who engineered the universes. It merely points to how a creator/creative cause may have proceeded.

Notwithstanding, every hypothesis including that of higher beings must be explored and tested according to available facts.

So well done scientists and may it not be used to further evil.

Greetings.

Greetings as well sir,

I absolutely agree that science must keep an open mind to all possibilities in trying to answer the important questions of existence.

The scientific system builds on bodies of acquired knowledge step by step, rather than a reliance on mere wishful conjectures.

plaetton:
The scientific system builds on bodies of acquired knowledge step by step, rather than a reliance on mere wishful conjectures.

Sir how far?
I agree with what you wrote and my post did not imply otherwise (at least intentionally).

Simply put, God is an ASS(Arts, Science and Spirit). Study your Spirit very well and you will know that the Supreme Spirit(God) actually created NATURE and is the Fulcrum that exploded the first formless substance in the Big Bang and knitted them in a show of one united Nature. Such is life!!!!

This is plaetton being foolish. Life being designed in the lab doesn't prove evolution or abiogenesisis. It instead proves that to get something as complex as life requires intelligent input. This supports a creationist or ID position.

I get a car from the carshop.
I remove the windows and windshields.
I remove the upholstery.
I remove the doors.
I remove the headlamps, indicators, brake lights and all other lights.
I remove the hub caps.
I remove the rear and passanger seats
I remove the body.
I leave only the chasis, engines, wheels, driver seat and vehicle controls.

And you tell me that I synthesised a new car?

Duh!

Palantir:
I get a car from the carshop.
I remove the windows and windshields.
I remove the upholstery.
I remove the doors.
I remove the headlamps, indicators, brake lights and all other lights.
I remove the hub caps.
I remove the rear and passanger seats
I remove the body.
I leave only the chasis, engines, wheels, driver seat and vehicle controls.

And you tell me that I synthesised a new car?

Duh!

A summary of plaetton 's article

KingEbukasBlog:


A summary of plaetton 's article

The issue here is about that sacred , intangible essence callef life.

You and your type have refused to accept that life emerges on its own, no Toothfairy required, when the right chemical ingredients are assembled together .

That's the issue here.

plaetton:


The issue here about that sacred , intangible essence call life.

You and your type have refused to accept that life emerges on its own , no Toothfairy required,when the right chemical ingredients are assembled together

That's the issue here.

Are you oblivious to the fact that the two emboldened texts prove that life requires a creator . Bakers need to know the right ingredients to make bread ? Only intelligence and knowledge are needed to decide the required quantity of ingredients in a mixture .

KingEbukasBlog:


Are you oblivious to the fact that the two emboldened texts prove that life requires a creator . Bakers need to know the right ingredients to make bread ? Only intelligence and knowledge are needed to decide the required quantity of ingredients in a mixture .

Intelligent creator would have created complex life from nothing or something, but scientific evidence suggests that life first emerged as a simple protolife, then evolved in complexity over eons of time.

plaetton:


Intelligent creator would have created complex life from nothing or something, but scientific evidence suggests that life first emerged as a simple protolife, then evolved in complexity over eons of time.

Crap. There is nil scientific evidence for angiogenesis and evolution. The only proof is the blind faith evolutionists like yourself have. Bring your so-called evidence and watch me scatter it to smithereens.

KingEbukasBlog:


Are you oblivious to the fact that the two emboldened texts prove that life requires a creator . Bakers need to know the right ingredients to make bread ? Only intelligence and knowledge are needed to decide the required quantity of ingredients in a mixture .

...


And how the required quantity of ingredients are made to appear by sheer magic!

Plaetton shows an article of bioengineers who created life and yet don't understand how they created it. The elements of creativity and intention are thrown out of the window. If those are out, is what's left intelligently designed?!

I am more concerned with the ethics of this project.

plaetton:


Intelligent creator would have created complex life from nothing or something, but scientific evidence suggests that life first emerged as a simple protolife, then evolved in complexity over eons of time.

You see that's your opinion and it could be wrong . An intelligent creator can decide to start small and end big . Its done everywhere - phones , softwares , computers etc . We didn't get to what we have here just like that . There are different factors . Tech level , it could be the creator's business plan to evolve his products and make more money , it could be the customer's preference or specifications that showed the need for an upgrade etc

So concisely , evolution of nature or life forms does not preclude the existence of a designer , it necessitates it . Isn't it obvious ?

KingEbukasBlog:




So concisely , evolution of nature or life forms does not preclude the existence of a [size=18pt]TALKING, BOOK WRITING[/size] designer , it necessitates it . Isn't it obvious ?

I fixed it for you.

Kay17:
...


And how the required quantity of ingredients are made to appear by sheer magic!

Plaetton shows an article of bioengineers who created life and yet don't understand how they created it. The elements of creativity and intention are thrown out of the window. If those are out, is what's left intelligently designed?!

I am more concerned with the ethics of this project.

So what happens when they now understand how they "created" it . The elements of creativity and intention would be rightly shown to have passed through the door

Whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad.

Who saw what Kay17 tried doing ? The bioengineers did not understand how they created it - luck . So she circumlocutorily suggested that life emerged through luck .

Can we give her a round of applause

Weah96:


I fixed it for you.

At least mine talks and offers inspiration through which his word was penned down . Void-nothingness- is vacuous and unconscious , dead . It lacks the propensity to bring forth an intelligent conscious living being as you

KingEbukasBlog:


At least mine talks and offers inspiration through which his word was penned down . Void-nothingness- is vacuous and unconscious , dead . It lacks the propensity to bring forth an intelligent conscious living being as you

Hahaha. Don't deceive yourself, nothing is talking to you. I can bet money.

I told you before that you sabi lie very well.

UyiIredia:
This is plaetton being foolish. Life being designed in the lab doesn't prove evolution or abiogenesisis. It instead proves that to get something as complex as life requires intelligent input. This supports a creationist or ID position.

So, do you first of all agree that life has indeed been created in the lab?

If you do, then you agree that life is simply a fruit of a chemical reaction.

That's all that I am interested in highlighting here.

Now, whether such chemical reactions need an Intelligent supervision or can occur in nature without Intelligent supervision is a subject for another debate.