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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

Hope they don't accidentally create a monster that rampages across the world.

Hmmm... That would stab a hole in one of the heavily used arguments for creationism.

Kinda scary if you ask me. Nonetheless, cool.

Hope they don't accidentally create a monster that rampages across the world.


Like Godzilla?:confused:

you call?

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/mikezila_bucket/60ac.jpg

Hmmm... That would stab a hole in one of the heavily used arguments for creationism.
really? why do you think that?

Like Godzilla?:confused:
Or worse, a synthetic virus that spreads like a wildfire and can't be stopped.

Or worse, a synthetic virus that spreads like a wildfire and can't be stopped.

it's a little scary you even thought that.:eek:
But,yeah,the thought that people in the position to actually do that could is even scarier

really? why do you think that?
I've seen enough creationists on the board use the line, "Man/science can't create life." as proof that God created the world.

(P.S. - Before you rip into me for that one, note that I also believe that god created the world. I'm just saying that I've seen the argument used before.)

There may be military interest in this subject.

I've seen enough creationists on the board use the line, "Man/science can't create life." as proof that God created the world.

(P.S. - Before you rip into me for that one, note that I also believe that god created the world. I'm just saying that I've seen the argument used before.)
phffft! it can also go the other way-to prove a miracle did happen first you have to prove it can happen. it's much easier to prove that life forms with an outside intelligent influence than just leaving everything in a dish and coming back in a few million years an see if anything popped up.

phffft! it can also go the other way-to prove a miracle did happen first you have to prove it can happen. it's much easier to prove that life forms with an outside intelligent influence than just leaving everything in a dish and coming back in a few million years an see if anything popped up.
Well yeah, I know. Like I said, I think god created the world. That doesn't mean I think every argument for that makes sense.

Hmmm... That would stab a hole in one of the heavily used arguments for creationism.
Creationism has no merit. No more evidence need be found to discredit it; it has been long discredited.

Creationism has no merit. No more evidence need be found to discredit it; it has been long discredited.
explain the human spine? it isn't made for walking upright, yet our brains are hardwired to walk upright.

Creationism has no merit. No more evidence need be found to discredit it; it has been long discredited.
I realize that. I was just saying that they can't use that argument anymore.

explain the human spine? it isn't made for walking upright, yet our brains are hardwired to walk upright.
I would see that more as evidence of not being created by an omnipotent being.

explain the human spine? it isn't made for walking upright, yet our brains are hardwired to walk upright.
That's a good question. If God is perfect, and he created us in his image, then why is our spine flawed in that manner?

That's a good question. If God is perfect, and he created us in his image, then why is our spine flawed in that manner?
why would you put a leash or muzzle on a dog? it could be to give us a challenge to over come? it could just be an design oversight...like the exploding gas tanks on Fords?

God might not be "perfect", just a whole lot less imperfect than us?

I would see that more as evidence of not being created by an omnipotent being.
omnipotence could be relative? a camper with a book of matches would seem God-like to a caveman...more so if he got on the business end of shotgun.

struck down by fire and thunder:(

why would you put a leash or muzzle on a dog? it could be to give us a challenge to over come? it could just be an design oversight...like the exploding gas tanks on Fords?

God might not be "perfect", just a whole lot less imperfect than us?
Or you could acknowledge the simplest and most obvious answer: Because that's the way it happened to evolve?

Or you could acknowledge the simplest and most obvious answer: Because that's the way it happened to evolve?
that's just it, it hasn't evolved.

that's just it, it hasn't evolved.
Then why does every biologist say it has? Are they lying?

Evolution is the word.

Some bits evolve faster than others.

Birds still have a vertebrae that dinosaurs had, just slower to evolve into something else.

Some people have hair-some dont, but we're evolving towards a hairless species, its just Mike has a head start on the rest of us :D

that's just it, it hasn't evolved.

And who made you believe that? Kent Hovind?
Next time ask him to do your tax returns :)

Anyway:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Talks a bit about "design" flaws.

Then why does every biologist say it has? Are they lying?
no, just wrong...i hope:)

phffft! it can also go the other way-to prove a miracle did happen first you have to prove it can happen. it's much easier to prove that life forms with an outside intelligent influence than just leaving everything in a dish and coming back in a few million years an see if anything popped up.

Dumbifying a scientific theory doesn't make it false.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

And who made you believe that? Kent Hovind?
Next time ask him to do your tax returns :)

Anyway:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Talks a bit about "design" flaws.

i do my own taxes-it's not that hard when you work it out on paper.

what should i do with my $25,000 return this year?:lolhit:

i do my own taxes-it's not that hard when you work it out on paper.

what should i do with my $25,000 return this year?:lolhit:

But Hovind was very creative when it came to tax evasions, afaik he's serving 10 years for it now :)

that's what happens when you get greedy.

no, just wrong...i hope:)
So you're saying that the entire peer-reviewed scientific system, as well as every scientist in this field, is entirely off-base, and you, a layman, are correct.

Well, good luck with that hypothesis. Evolution is a fact--it happens all the time. You can cover your eyes and ears all you want; things will continue to evolve even as you claim they do not. That's the wonderful thing about science: It doesn't ask for your faith, only for your eyes.

So you're saying that the entire peer-reviewed scientific system, as well as every scientist in this field, is entirely off-base, and you, a layman, are correct.

Well, good luck with that hypothesis. Evolution is a fact--it happens all the time. You can cover your eyes and ears all you want; things will continue to evolve even as you claim they do not. That's the wonderful thing about science: It doesn't ask for your faith, only for your eyes.

Galileo http://redrocket.homestead.com/emoticons/evillaugh.gif


say what you want. i'm curious, you accept what you've been told as gospel:slap:

who's taking the dangerous leap of faith?

Galileo http://redrocket.homestead.com/emoticons/evillaugh.gif


say what you want. i'm curious, you accept what you've been told as gospel:slap:

who's taking the dangerous leap of faith?
I am taking no leap of faith--I've looked at the evidence. It's luckily ultimately of no consequence--regardless of what either of us think, things will continue to evolve. We humans can alter that evolutionary process ourselves...think of things like drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or strains of grain that grow better, or dog breeding. That's all evolution, man. I don't see how you could possibly deny it.

...think of things like drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or strains of grain that grow better, or dog breeding. That's all evolution, man. I don't see how you could possibly deny it.

i am. those require intelligent intervention (or intervention w/ less than intelligent humans-such as not finishing out your 'script) to be effective. there would be no dogs without humans.

i am. those require intelligent intervention (or intervention w/ less than intelligent humans-such as not finishing out your 'script) to be effective. there would be no dogs without humans.
All right, now how about the species of moth that evolved when its native habitat was covered in ash by a volcano? Suddenly, its coloring stood out against the ash...so rather rapidly, it evolved to be a different color so that it blended in again. I don't have the species immediately handy, but I can look it up.

Sorry, it was soot, not ash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

All right, now how about the species of moth that evolved when its native habitat was covered in ash by a volcano? Suddenly, its coloring stood out against the ash...so rather rapidly, it evolved to be a different color so that it blended in again. I don't have the species immediately handy, but I can look it up.
if the moth and it's food source hadn't been eliminated by the volcano, it's predators almost certainly had been. are you sure this is a current example? volcanoes wreck ecosystems like man could never do even if we tried.

assuming there was any life still standing, the predators eating the wrong colored moths is still an example of an intelligent (by comparison) outside influence.

if the moth and it's food source hadn't been eliminated by the volcano, it's predators almost certainly had been. are you sure this is a current example? volcanoes wreck ecosystems like man could never do even if we tried.

assuming there was any life still standing, the predators eating the wrong colored moths is still an example of an intelligent (by comparison) outside influence.
You're grasping at straws here. No, the predators weren't looking for moths of a certain color; they were merely looking for moths, period. The evolved moths blended in better, were harder to see, and thus were more successful. This is the crux of the idea behind natural selection. It doesn't matter what event caused the change in phenotype. The change in the population occurred; that's what is important, and is what evolution is.

Sorry, it was soot, not ash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
i'll grant you that is interesting, but it's still due to man's influence and it's natural predators.

i'll grant you that is interesting, but it's still due to man's influence and it's natural predators.
So? Man is part of nature. As I said, it doesn't matter what events cause the evolution; it's natural selection unless we're intentionally breeding a species for a certain quality.

You're grasping at straws here. No, the predators weren't looking for moths of a certain color; they were merely looking for moths, period. The evolved moths blended in better, were harder to see, and thus were more successful. This is the crux of the idea behind natural selection. It doesn't matter what event caused the change in phenotype. The change in the population occurred; that's what is important, and is what evolution is.
if i was grasping at straws, i would have brought up eugenics:)

No offense Mike, but you are arguing this on a basis of little knowledge of the theories of evolution. I could easily argue your points, but there isn't much point. I can only encourage you to read before you judge. For the creation vs evolution debate, talkorigins.org is a great site, it will also clarify many of the misconceptions you have about evolution.

No offense Mike, but you are arguing this on a basis of little knowledge of the theories of evolution. I could easily argue your points, but there isn't much point. I can only encourage you to read before you judge. For the creation vs evolution debate, talkorigins.org is a great site, it will also clarify many of the misconceptions you have about evolution.

just pointing out that there are holes big enough to drive a cattle car thru...that's why it's a theory. when you accept a theory as fact without question, it's not science, it's a religion.:corn:

just pointing out that there are holes big enough to drive a cattle car thru...that's why it's a theory. when you accept a theory as fact without question, it's not science, it's a religion.:corn:

Very very wrong again :)
Religion is faith based, basic evolution theory does not require faith, its just observation of collected data.

Anyway, creationism has nothing, so excuse me for believing in an incomplete theory instead of myth.

Very very wrong again :)
Religion is faith based, basic evolution theory does not require faith, its just observation of collected data.

Anyway, creationism has nothing, so excuse me for believing in an incomplete theory instead of myth.
oh, i'll admit that being "poof-ed" into existence is somewhat fanciful:@@:

still, blindly accepting the authorities opinion as fact because they "know" is dangerous whether it's a scientist, politician or priest.

oh, i'll admit that being "poof-ed" into existence is somewhat fanciful:@@:

still, blindly accepting the authorities opinion as fact because they "know" is dangerous whether it's a scientist, politician or priest.

I don't accept anything blindly, and of all the options, religion's explanation surely must be the least likely to a thinking person...