Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life 2.0 (Science plays God)
The Economist ^ | 9/10/06 | The Economist

Posted on 09/10/2006 5:38:02 AM PDT by voletti

At the moment, what passes for genetic engineering is mere pottering. It means moving genes one at a time from species to species so that bacteria can produce human proteins that are useful as drugs, and crops can produce bacterial proteins that are useful as insecticides. True engineering would involve more radical redesigns. But the Carlson curve (Dr Carlson disavows the name, but that may not stop it from sticking) is making that possible.

In the short run such engineering means assembling genes from different organisms to create new metabolic pathways or even new organisms. In the long run it might involve re-writing the genetic code altogether, to create things that are beyond the range of existing biology. These are enterprises far more worthy of the name of genetic engineering than today's tinkering. But since that name is taken, the field's pioneers have had to come up with a new one. They have dubbed their fledgling discipline “synthetic biology”. Truly intelligent design

One of synthetic biology's most radical spirits is Drew Endy. Dr Endy, who works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to the subject from engineering, not biology. As an engineer, he can recognise a kludge when he sees one. And life, in his opinion, is a kludge.

(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-196 last
To: DaveLoneRanger
Wow, how far can we take this? I mean, tornadoes can count, then! Waterspouts, and even those little funnel cyclones that form in the tub when you pull the stopper!

Here's a good example of order arising from chaos through strictly naturalistic means: giving birth. Does it require supernatural intervention for a fertilized egg to develop into a newborn, or do natural laws suffice? Surely you won't argue that this isn't a sufficient example of order arising from chaos.

You can't just handwave the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like this, DLR. In order to apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you need to draw a boundary around a defined system, and calculate the change in entropy of that system. In order to show a hypothesized process is thermodynamically impossible, you need to show that the energy input across the boundary is insufficient to cause the stated change (decrease) in entropy of the system. No creationist source citing the 2nd Law for this purpose has ever done this (including the link you provided), and without this, the 2LoT is about as useful in application towards evolution as the price of tea in China.

181 posted on 09/13/2006 7:12:15 AM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Anti-science literal fundamentalist Biblical proselytizing spam.
182 posted on 09/13/2006 7:25:20 AM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I mean, tornadoes can count, then!

Why shouldn't they? Lets don't forget the "wall cloud" at the back of the thunderstorm cell from which the tornado descends. Yes, a lot of concentrated energy and structure arise from initially diffuse moisture and warm air. If you take the water back in time, it was once probably on the surface of some lake or ocean in a much lower energy state. Isn't the Sun wonderful?

Ilya Prigogine, investigating mathematical models of "systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium," showed that "self organization" is a frequent emergent property of such systems and, no, they don't violate the 2nd LOT. His work got him the 1977 Nobel for Chemistry.

183 posted on 09/13/2006 7:56:00 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I notice you're still waving AiG and Jonathan Sarfati around despite their having allegedly embarrassed you repeatedly. It's hard to put a good face on that.
184 posted on 09/13/2006 8:02:20 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: voletti
CREATING life from scratch is the sole province of G-D, ain't it?

Creating SCRATCH from NOTHING sure seems to be!

185 posted on 09/13/2006 8:25:34 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You didn't say....

PLAY NICE!


186 posted on 09/13/2006 8:26:14 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
You left out.....



187 posted on 09/13/2006 8:32:18 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138; DaveLoneRanger
Perhaps you will bless us with an example of a living thing that actually resembles a manufactured thing in materials and workmanship.

You can't because the living thing is so far superior to the man-made manufactured thing that it's hard to make the comparison.

The last time I looked, manufactured things did not assemble themselves or reproduce themselves with variation and negative feedback.

That's right, and if those simple manufactured things are the result of intelligence and design, then the far superior living things that can do things unheard of compared to our simple machines, must have been the result of a far superior intelligence.

188 posted on 09/13/2006 10:08:24 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: metmom

But you are missing the point. Things designed by evolution are different in almost every respect from things manufactured by humans.

The only real exceptions are manufactured things designed with the aid of evolutionary algorithms (copied from nature).

The future of design in complex manufactured goods rests with our ability to understand and copy evolution in our design processes.


189 posted on 09/13/2006 10:14:03 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"But they have no compunction, when considering life and/or "God", in jumping to the conclusion (but treating it as 'axiomatic') that God worked and thought primarily as an engineer. Why not a hacker, or even an artsy-fartsy "creative" type?"

Because that image of God does not fit in with the 'Platonic ideal' of a God that has been put forward by Christians.

190 posted on 09/13/2006 11:33:28 AM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
...the 'Platonic ideal' of a God that has been put forward by Christians.

Which 'Christians'?

A 'poll' just out shows that Americans (US type, I guess) put 'god' into mostly one of four major categories.

191 posted on 09/13/2006 1:22:37 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"A 'poll' just out shows that Americans (US type, I guess) put 'god' into mostly one of four major categories."

Which categories?

192 posted on 09/13/2006 2:21:21 PM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator

To: b_sharp
Because that image of God does not fit in with the 'Platonic ideal' of a God that has been put forward by Christians.

Not all of them. J.R.R. Tolkein has some interesting essays about creation and sub-creation.

Cheers!

194 posted on 09/13/2006 7:15:08 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
 
The '4 Gods'


195 posted on 09/13/2006 8:49:32 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent

"Yep. Toss superintelligent AIs into the mix (we'll have sufficient hardware in a decade or less, software is harder but progress is being made) and things get really interesting."

In the Chinese curse sense.


196 posted on 09/14/2006 4:40:15 PM PDT by strategofr (When a man speaks of his strength, he whispers his weakness---John M. Shanahan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-196 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson