Scientists may have created life in the lab

[Az]

It looks like some scientists at Scripps Research Institute have created life in a lab. They claim its not quite life yet... but their position seems to be one based on caution rather than the actual merits of the discovery.

Link http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html

Excerpt:

------------------------------------

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

------------------------------------

Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.

More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ...

[dcsmart]

1. the hand of a creator

i think the first response from the religious side is that there was a creator involved in the process, something started the cycle which continued on its "preprogrammed way" which, or course, someone had to program. that is the response i think religious people would say, which makes sense. The more we understand the "mind of god" and how life began and how the mechanisms work, the better off our civilization becomes and the more hope for mutual support among people

[cosmik debris]

2. Your theory starts with the assumption

That there is a creator. Then you use that assumption to give credit to the creator.

All mythology does the same.

If you start with the assumption that Thor exists. Then you can give him credit for lightning bolts. But the existence of lightning bolts is not proof of the existence of Thor.

When scientist proved that lightning was merely static electricity, believers in Thor had to change their position. They claim that Thor created the static electricity.

When scientists show that a creator is not necessary for life on Earth, believers in the creator myth have to back up one step and claim the creator created the science.

It is a game of infinite regression, of endless excuses, of an unfalsifiable god.

[dcsmart]

3. i was referring to the scientists

that initiated the experiment, the people who set the experiment in motion...the experiment had creators, that's all.

[Az]

4. The point of the experiment

was to show that from the basic building blocks present a particular point in earth's history it is possible to assemble a collection of molecules that together are capable of self replication. That is the start of life. They got more than they were shooting for in that it even began exhibiting mutations and adaption. So its a rather stunning achievement.

And short of having had a video camera present when the first actual molecule began its journey it is likely that there will be believers who continue to insist that a guiding hand must have been present. But what this experiment does is greatly lower the bar the odds of what happened. It just became far more likely that life started from a self assembling collection of molecules that initiated a self replicating series of molecules. And grey areas are where we live in reality. Absolutes are the domain of gods and zealots.

[dcsmart]

6. i'm not arguing for the existence of god

just suggesting what theists may say about the experiment, but there was a creator in this experiment:

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose

Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.

there was a first cause....the scientists "created molecules that self-replicate" and "synthesized rna enzymes", there was an active intelligence involved in this experiment....

the molecules that self-replicate did not create themselves nor did the "synthesized rna enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components."

[frogmarch]

8. And it took only about a week

for all this to happen!

Wow, this is really exciting, isn't it? I wonder what will be next!

[jeepnstein]

5. Doesn't say...

anywhere in the Bible we can't do it. Or even that we shouldn't do it. It's a remarkable addition to the body of knowledge.

It's a good science experiment but does little for our understanding of the Scriptures.

[Az]

7. Not everyone

Not everyone considers furthering our understanding of scriptures to be a valuable application of time or effort.