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 ...
And you know that these *natural processes* weren't desgined and put into motion by intelligence... how?
No I'm not.
I have demonstrated that whether it was or not, your claims about what natural processes can or can not do are grossly false.
Things behaving according to the laws that govern them are not evidence that order and complexity can arise without intelligence.
Sure they are.
If someone creates a machine that performs a certain function and it does that faithfully, the machine was still created by intelligence so, not only is the machine a result of intelligence but the product it produces is also, even though the intelligent source was not directly active in the creation of each and every product.
Okey dokey, as soon as you can demonstrate that the laws of physics were actually cranked out on an assembly line, you might have some basis for your currently unfounded conclusions. As it is, you're engaging in a classic example of circular reasoning.
In the meantime, your attempts to claim that natural processes cannot increase order or complexity are still gross falsehoods. They can and do. Your claims are as vapid and incorrect as claiming that a computer can't sort a list of numbers, because, gosh, computers were built by people. Nice non sequitur.
Where did I claim to know such a thing, and where did you hallucinate that I had based any of my post upon any such requirement?
So... Why is recombining or tweaking genes considered "playing God" while planting corn isn't?
As I already mentioned, I claimed no such knowledge. However, when *you* write something like, "Order and complexity are a result of intelligence" (in your post #12), perhaps *you* could answer the following question: "And you know that these *natural processes* were designed and put into motion by intelligence... how?"
Why did you address this reply to me?
Because I cut/pasted a name from the wrong post in the thread. ;-)
Oh, but it is! I'm such a snob that I don't post for lots of other "science" threads, such as those about astrology, UFO anal probes, crystal power, ghosts, hollow earth, Nostradamus prophecies, etc. My whole ping list (now 396 names) is dedicated to such snobbery. We even have a word for it -- "rationality."
Human beings.
Worse than that, actually. One of the favorite refutations of theistic arguments is "How are *you* so specially favored to know what God is like. It's only your opinion, not falsifiable, etc. etc."
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?
Cheers!
"How" .NE. "Why"...
Cheers!
No more than mapping the genome. Or discovering penicillin. Remember, it used to be that death was God's will. Interfering with it was "playing God."
If God didn't want us messing around He would have made the information unavailable.
Nowhere in any Biblical text does it say "thou shalt stop scientific exploration when it gets to THIS point."
Within which we attempt to practice niceosity.
The article, not the experience. However, I confess to using the ping list for crop circle threads. It is not yet a ban-able offense to ridicule that brand of idiocy.
ID means never having to say you're sorry.
You mean like metmom and mamzelle screaming at people making non-prayer comments on a "prayer thread" posted to News?
You forgot crop circles, the-moon-landings-were-faked, "Electric Universe," instantaneous light (AKA "Ralph Sansbury was right"), and "the Kronia Hypothesis." We could mention Halton Arp, Black Light Power, and white supremacist invocations of the Lost Tribes of Israel.
Yes, the snobbery never ends.
The world around us is filled with a plethora of cases where order and complexity are known to arise from intelligence, either directly or indirectly. There are cases where the best that could be said is that no one knows for sure. But it is not reasonable to decide with no basis for that decision, that there is no intelligence behind order and complexity. There's simply no precedent for it.
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.