Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Made from Scratch”??

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As you read this article from the Washington Post, ask yourself how far such research would get without enzymes and a host of other materials “borrowed” from existing life-forms. “From scratch” properly should mean “made only with chemicals available in a realistic prebiotic environment.” That’s not what we’re dealing with here. And even if we were getting back to chemicals available in a realistic prebiotic environment, could the same be said for the investigator inteference of Craig Venter and his colleagues? Wouldn’t it be safer to say that they are acting as intelligent designers and not as mere accelerators of existing blind evolutionary processes?

Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms
By Rick Weiss | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, December 17, 2007; A01

It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life’s most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA — an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought.

Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA.

Scientists in Maryland have already built the world’s first entirely handcrafted chromosome — a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce.

MORE

Comments
You don't understand thermodynamics, Nochange. Don't feel bad though, somebody once said "Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you any more."Corey
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Magnan, I've thought about this subject before. You forgot the most important element of all in all those experiments you listed...The Human Element. I truly believe that could be the source for the phenomena we see. As well, I believe when Almighty God created man, if I remember correctly from sunday school, He made us different than all the other animals. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. No where else is this direct breath of God mentioned in the Genesis account of creation. As well this "specialness" of man fits very well into the overall picture of the Anthropic Hypothesis which is surprisingly very very strong in its scientific validation at the present moment.bornagain77
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
ari-freedom, why?magnan
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
magnan be carefulari-freedom
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
What if the evolution from ape to man was sequentially true but- not physically accurate?! Meaning what if their wasn’t just random mutation and natural selection involved but in fact incorporation of new parts through co-option and sc assembledge instuctions? It has been recognized that a man's brain and mind are in fact much more complex than an apes so what if the parts that make up the human soul are in fact built into the apes genome. This would mean that man really isn’t all that much like an ape after all (what a surprise)- in fact man has new parts and SC assemblage instructions. This would mean that man did not evolve directly from apes and therefore, indirectly, man was designed from scratch - New SC and novel parts assemble into an IC. Part ape in the image of God. In this case the assembledge instructions would be absolutly paramount. I feel that by just going back and seeing what means it took to reach the ends - you are doing and proving nothing except finding a story that works and fits the picture. But you have not explained how the enivroment reached the state that it did. This is the whole problem with these expeirements and the natural selection simulations on the computers that claim to prove Darwin right. This all took the mind of an intelligent agent to figure out- you have no program, no proteins, no chromosomes,- nothing with out a mind to realize their existence- Also there remains another problem in the case of the computer it will never be able to surpass the SC of a human because it is the result of a human intelligence. In other words we program it so it is incapable of developing novel abilities- even if we progam it to have the "synthetic" ability to design novelty we still were the ones who implemented those algorythims and therrfore its novelty is really not novel but just exponential (we can regress its SC and understand it perfectly) But a computer cannot understand a man, nor can it tell us anything that we arent already capable of understanding or designing- a computer is really a simple mind that is capable of holding huge numbers and mking huge calculations. It is an extention of human intelligence but nothing without it. This logic is transferable to the expieremnt above. By designing an enviornment we fool ourselves into believing that we have designed greater novelty when there is in fact none. We still did not design those conditions on earth originally and therefore the simulation tells us absolutly nothing about whether life is designed or not. This simulation is nothing but a recreation or redesign except we cant do it from scratch like the intelligent designer did. And as it has been pointed out, the problem gets worse when we look at what if anything is behind the simulation of the earth- human SC intelligence-We have another frustrating example and proof of brilliant design engineering.Frost122585
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
p.noyola (#15): "(m):...a lot of evidence that also shows that dualism should include all living organisms This view, IMHO, smacks of common descent and contradicts any special status for humans, which is nonsense." It doesn't imply common descent, just that all life somehow seems to have a common nonphysical underlying nature. That in itself could be the case regardless of the history of origins. It doesn't contradict a special status for human beings, since humans could very well have spiritual natures over and above the common living continuum. What is, is, and needs to be accommodated by the world view for that world view to be valid. The evidence I was referring to is the results of numerous controlled studies conducted by legitimate researchers. The following is a short list of some of the most interesting ones. I can give you references if you are interested. -Psychokinetic effects on plant growth A. Saklani -Shamanic Healing and Wheat Seeds (& Further Studies) A. Saklani -Algae and Psychokinesis C. M. Pleass and N. Dean Dey -Psychokinesis and Bacterial Growth C. B. Nash -Psychokinesis and Fungus Culture J. Barry -Psychokinesis and Red Blood Cells W. Braud, G. Davis and R. Wood -Red Blood Cells and Distant Healing W. Braud -Wound Healing in Mice and Spiritual Healing (& subsequent replication) B. Grad, R. J. Cadoret, G. I. Paul -Malaria in Mice: Expectancy Effects and Psychic Healing G. F. Solfvin -Arousing Anesthetized Mice Through Psychokinesis G. K. Watkins and A. M. Watkinsmagnan
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
well we're talking about bacteria. They don't think thoughts. Machines already move around (though just sticking them in the sun won't really do anything). Why can't a machine procreate?ari-freedom
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
If life followed the second law of thermodynamics, we'd all end up being puddles of used up goo. The fact that we're able to move around, think thoughts, and even procreate suggests that we are all in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.Nochange
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
nochange, life doesn't ignore the second law of thermodynamicsCorey
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
The Dawkins veg comment is here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Speciesism_and_Vegetarianismp.noyola
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
nochange explain the last sentence because usually the 2nd is cited as an obstacle to the origin of life but once there's life it can continue to operateari-freedom
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
heh heh p.noyola, “we’re just another form of animal so we should all be vegetarians” is hilarious, where did he say that?Corey
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Everything living has a life force. That's what makes us more than just sacks of chemicals. It's what allows life to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Nochange
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
well if there was a necessary vital force then it would be theoretically *impossible* for it to emerge from natural means. Instead it would be practically impossible but evolutionists will take anything they can get.ari-freedom
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Soon every known occasion that life has been observed to arise from non life will involve Intelligent Design. We will have the proof that ID can produce life. It will then be up to the materialists to demonstrate life can arise otherwise than by Design. Notice that new life's inVenter has a capital V. Does that mean Artificial Life is a new religion?idnet.com.au
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Magnan in #13:
a lot of evidence that also shows that dualism should include all living organisms
This view, IMHO, smacks of common descent and contradicts any special status for humans, which is nonsense. Reminds me of Dawkins recently saying something stupid like "we're just another form of animal so we should all be vegetarians" in the same breath as admitted he eats meat. What hypocrisy! And if he's right, he shouldn't eat pineapples because we share a common ancestor with the pineapple, don't we?p.noyola
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
I don't think that: "This program will eventually add additional proof to ID by showing the enormus complexity in the design of life. Hey, I just made an ID prediction. I thought ID isn’t a science?" is any better a prediction than: "I’m quite sure they won’t be able to. God won’t allow these half-artificial/half-real bacteria to be alive. They’ll put their fake chromosomes in the bacteria, and the bacteria will lie dead, inanimate, “soulless” if you will."Corey
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
As mentioned by some posters on this, the key issue is the complex specified information content of the DNA of the chromosomes. As molecular biology and chemistry progress, it should become possible to synthesize long stretches of DNA base pairs completely from atomic constituents, not requiring as precursors any life-created biological materials whatsoever. In other words, totally from "scratch". The point is that this feat would be a monument to the keen intelligence and creativity of man as an intelligent agent to analyze the incredibly complex machinery of living organisms, modify the design, and recreate it from constituent chemicals. But this would certainly not give any support to the fantasy that this originated by random variation plus selection. The other issue is whether there is some sort of "elan vitale" or vital force in living organisms that would prevent such a totally synthetic organism from really coming "alive". I think modern biology is right in rejecting this notion, because so far as far as I know biological research hasn't uncovered anything in living organisms that isn't "machinery". But it is a deeply puzzling area. Of course, biology is only looking for machinery. But the main reason this is puzzling is that whatever the nature of consciousness, it is ultimately not (just) the body and brain. In that sense it is of a fundamentally different nature, along the lines of the philosophy of mind called dualism. There is a lot of evidence that also shows that dualism should include all living organisms, which down to the smallest cell seem to engage in a life energy field which has some aspects of consciousness (intentionality). This is shown by numerous experiments demonstrating human intentional effects on living organisms from single cells to animals to other humans. So this at least superficially looks like a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Whatever the truth is, it has to encompass all the data.magnan
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
why should bacteria have a life force?ari-freedom
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
It says they haven't tried to boot up the chromosome yet. I'm quite sure they won't be able to. God won't allow these half-artificial/half-real bacteria to be alive. They'll put their fake chromosomes in the bacteria, and the bacteria will lie dead, inanimate, "soulless" if you will. (No, I'm not a retard, I don't think bacteria have souls - but they do have a life force around them, and that will be missing here).Nochange
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
This is all ridiculous in a way- what if I wanted to see if the New England Patriots could have a perfect season without intelligent design- so then I go out and got all of the players necessary to recreate their current season matching them against all of the inferior teams that they played- What on earth would this prove? I have a better experiment; take all of the pats of the flagellum and put them in a test tube then say hocus-pocus! and see if they become a functioning flagellum. They wont. It would be equivalent to going out on the streets of Boston and picking a team of random citizens who mostly have never even played competitive football- women, men and children- then put them all in uniform and see if they can go 14 and 0. That is the real test.Frost122585
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
The article reminds me of the story of the king asking five blind beggars to describe an elephant. The narrative never takes notice of the king, fully capable of seeing the elephant he asks the beggars to describe. It seems specious to me.toc
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
you see even if a human redesigns the original enviornment- it still doesnt answer the question- why or how that original enviornment got to be the way it was without a designer?Frost122585
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Human beings did all those things.Frost122585
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
While I'm not sure whether the words "from scratch" are appropriate when used on essays, (since it's hardly used in written or verbal context in the first place) even given the benefit of doubt, I would say that starting "from scratch" does not necessarily mean starting from some natural condition. If I said that build a house "from scratch", would it imply that I manufactured my own nails, concrete and wood? However I recongise the concern Dr. Dembski has over the language used in the article. I would say the words "from scratch" are an informal, and not scientific term, that can be interpreted many ways, and are thus prone to misinterpretation. By saying from scratch, you can mean: a. The information content only. (as in essays) In other words, without plagiarism. b. Without modification of existing structure(s). c. Complete synthesization and planning of both structure and materials from nature. I did not reread the article, although from my impression of it I thought the most appropriate meaning of the words "from scratch" in this case would be a. However even with this interpretation I could have been wrong, judging from bornagain77 comment it might have instead been b. The article is written as a form of media to the general public, and not in a prose suitable for scientific analysis, thus the tendency for to pass with thius degree of ambiguity.WinglesS
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
I doubt we will hear of the many failures this program will produce. When their created life forms show a greater tendancy to harmful consequences than RM, the end result will most likely be one disaster after another. This program will eventually add additional proof to ID by showing the enormus complexity in the design of life. Hey, I just made an ID prediction. I thought ID isn't a science?Peter
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
WinglesS
I don’t think it’s fair to impose such a high standard on the words “from scratch”. If I said I’m going to write an essay “from scratch” I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that I manufactured the paper I wrote the essay on, or made my own pencil or pen.
If a person were to say they were going to write an essay from scratch, this would not mean they plan to manufacture the paper. It would mean they plan not to plagiarize form any other written book. So, for the claim of making DNA from scratch, it would imply best that they intend not to copy from any other existing work (ie. known DNA). So, in any case of attempting to make DNA from scratch, they should avoid plagiarising (copying) genetic sequences (sentences) from one life form (one existing book) and inserting them into their own synthesized (scribed) DNA (book).
but I don’t think it’s fair to pick on their use of the words “from scratch” in this case.
Teh analogy can obviously be argued around the semantics.. and so, the idea of saying from scratch can and would have a misleading sound. I would guess that Dembski's concern is that this would be like the Miller-Urey experiment exhaggerations, where people not in the know (so to speak) began to spread the word that life was created in the lab... so, use of verbiage is important. I think WmD has a point. So, what will this story "telephone" [implying the concept behind the game 'telephone'] into?JGuy
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
I agree with you Dr. Dembski, They state in the article: "And while the first synthetic chromosome is a plagiarized version of a natural one, others that code for life forms that have never existed before are already under construction." Although I am really excited with this line of research; I have to ask: How much plagiarism will the new "life forms that have never existed before" contain? I believe the answer will be that 100% plagiarism will be found in the "new life forms". As the old saw goes, God said ‘Get your own dirt’. In other words to stay true to the term "From Scratch" you must actually "create new life" without cheating from other life forms. To show how drastic the hurdle is to actually create "New Life". If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids. That is just the possible combinations from a 100 L-amino acid chain, The average sequence of a typical protein is about 300 to 400 amino acids long. Yet many crucial proteins are thousands of amino acids long. On top of that, trying to figure out what a totally novel protein will actually look like will take too long: In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, that is 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it is estimated it will take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape. “Blue Gene’s final product, due in four or five years, will be able to “fold” a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing.” Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000 And actual functional proteins are a extreme rarity as far as total proteins possible go for a particular length of amino-acids. “From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other A totally novel cell with totally novel proteins AND DNA “from scratch”??? Not even remotely possible in this lifetime! Shoot, that is just finding compatible novel proteins that might work together, thats not even touching the complexity that would have to be mastered and go into crafting a novel genome of thousands upon thousands of base pairs of DNA that would actually control those novel proteins. Now of course they can peek over the “Designer's Shoulder”, all they want, and do lots of rearranging of proteins and DNA (which is what they are actually doing) and that would be really cool! But that's not totally from scratch as they are insinuating in the headline, that is merely rearranging stuff that has already been created.bornagain77
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
WinglesS: I beg to differ. Nobody talks about writing an essay "from scratch." Evolutionists do, however, talk about showing how something could evolve "from scratch," e.g., Tom Schneider. And when he does so, it's explicitly for the purpose of refuting ID (see his 2000 Nucleic Acids Research paper in which he takes on Behe). "From scratch" in these contexts is misleading. "From preexisting biological materials refashioned by design" would be accurate.William Dembski
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
I don't think it's fair to impose such a high standard on the words "from scratch". If I said I'm going to write an essay "from scratch" I don't think it's reasonable to assume that I manufactured the paper I wrote the essay on, or made my own pencil or pen. For the purpose of everyday usage, "from scratch" is probably understood as "without reference to other material" or in other words, without copying, which in this case, I believe has been used appropriately. Fair enough, that the researchers have not proven that viable strands of DNA can be produced via a blind evolutionary process, but instead acted as "intelligent designers" in this case, but I don't think it's fair to pick on their use of the words "from scratch" in this case.WinglesS
December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply