The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report - and I'm familiar with the contents.

If you can't post at least a dozen of the 200 papers you mentioned, then you are an outright fraud.

Post the citations.

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report

Tell that to you fellow evolution believers. They are the ones who provided it to support this ridiculous idea that non-living things can produce life WITHOUT using an already existing life.

TIP:

You people need to make sure your evidence is solid before you post it.

Where are your citations? You stated that you had at least 200. Post the citations or be labeled as a fraud.

ok. let's start with this:

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god' Artificial life has been created in a laboratory for the first time by a maverick scientist.

How did they create life, you asked?

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer. Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one. Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

bold mine

www.telegraph.co.uk... ml

Now, please debunk this WELL DOCUMENTED PEER-REVIEWED experiment by a RENOWNED scientist.

Did they not create life from pre-existing life?

Or was it from dead meat they created life from?

Prove me wrong.

No strawman argument. Just pure scientific research.

Those are news articles. Where are the citations? Do you know what a citation is????? It's the original research papers.

Post the citations.

a reply to: edmc^2

BTW, your link goes here: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Sorry We cannot find the page you are looking for. The page may have been moved, updated or deleted. There might be a problem with the website. You may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling.

a reply to: edmc^2

I can list 200but one will do. This one: Life can only create life. You just can't refute this fact. No one can. All scientific data, studies, and research have proven this to be 100% factual - even the ones done by evolutionists. In fact, let me use this link: www.youtube.com... Any idea of how the synthetic cell was created? And who created it?

This is what you posted. Where are the research papers???????????????????????????

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

BTW, your link goes here: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Sorry We cannot find the page you are looking for. The page may have been moved, updated or deleted. There might be a problem with the website. You may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling.

Well, here's another research that was done by a different team:

(in case the link breaks - the contents of the site is as follows)

Artificial life breakthrough after scientists create new living organism using synthetic DNA The organism can store and retrieve man-made genetic information Julie Steenhuysen Thursday 30 November 2017 11:50

In a major step toward creating artificial life, US researchers have developed a living organism that incorporates both natural and artificial DNA and is capable of creating entirely new, synthetic proteins.

The work, published in the journal Nature, brings scientists closer to the development of designer proteins made to order in a laboratory.

Previous work by Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, showed that it was possible to expand the genetic alphabet of natural DNA beyond its current four letters: adenine(A), cytosine(C), guanine (G) and thymine(T).


In 2014, Romesberg and colleagues created a strain of E. coli bacteria that contained two unnatural letters, X and Y.

Read more

The forgotten scientist involved in the discovery of DNA's structure
In the latest work, Romesberg’s team has shown that this partially synthetic form of E. coli can take instructions from this hybrid genetic alphabet to make new proteins.

“This is the first time ever a cell has translated a protein using something other than G, C, A or T,” Romesberg said.

Although the actual changes to the organism were small, the feat is significant, he said in a telephone interview. “It’s the first change to life ever made.”
...

www.independent.co.uk... html

In case the link is still broken, here's what the arti:

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
Artificial life has been created in a laboratory for the first time by a maverick scientist.

Dr Craig Venter, a multi-millionaire pioneer in genetics, and his team have managed to make a completely new "synthetic" life form from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive. The man-made single cell "creature", which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works.

Now Dr Venter believes organism, nicknamed Synthia, will pave the way for more complex creatures that can transform environmental waste into clean fuel, vaccinate against disease and soak up pollution.

But his development has also triggered debate over the ethics of "playing god" and the dangers of the new technology could pose in terms of biological hazards and warfare.

"We are entering an era limited only by our imagination," he said announcing the research published in the journal Science.

Dr Venter, a pioneer of genetic code sequencing and his team at the J Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, have been chasing the goal for more than 15 years at a cost of £30m.

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.

"This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do. We have a wide range of applications [in mind]," he said.

The researchers are planning to design algae that can capture carbon dioxide and make new hydrocarbons that could go into refineries.

They are also working on ways to speed up vaccine production, making new chemicals or food ingredients and cleaning up water, said Dr Venter.

While a major technological leap forward the life form is still incredibly simple in natural terms. Its DNA is made up of 485 genes, each strand of which is made up of one million base pairs, the equivalent of rungs on a ladder.

A human genome has 20,000 genes and three billion base pairs.

Nevertheless it is the beginning of the process that could lead to creation of much more complicated species, and into a world of artificial animals and people only envisaged in films such as Ridley Scott's Bladerunner and Steven Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence.

Professor Julian Savulescu, an expert in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, said: “Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity’s history, potentially peeking into its destiny.

"He is going toward the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.

"The potential is in the far future, but real and significant: dealing with pollution, new energy sources, new forms of communication. But the risks are also unparalleled.

"We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.

"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable."

Dr David King, director of the watchdog Human Genetics Alert, said: “What is really dangerous is these scientists’ ambitions for total and unrestrained control over nature, which many people describe as ‘playing God’.

“Scientists’ understanding of biology falls far short of their technical capabilities. We have already learnt to our cost the risks that gap brings, for the environment, animal welfare and human health.”

Dr Venter has called for reviews so that debate keeps up with the science.

He said: "It's part of an ongoing process that we've been driving, trying to make sure that the science proceeds in an ethical fashion, that we're being thoughtful about what we do and looking forward to the implications to the future."

www.telegraph.co.uk... ml

a reply to: edmc^2

Where are the citations????????? You're posting articles with no references. This is how naive you are - you buy into an idea with absolutely no research.

So where are the 200 citations??????????????

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

I can list 200but one will do. This one: Life can only create life. You just can't refute this fact. No one can. All scientific data, studies, and research have proven this to be 100% factual - even the ones done by evolutionists. In fact, let me use this link: www.youtube.com... Any idea of how the synthetic cell was created? And who created it?

This is what you posted. Where are the research papers???????????????????????????

continuing...





I hope you won't say this research was fake and Dr. Venter doesn't exist or what he and his team did was fake.

I hope too, that you won't say I just made this video up or that the research was made up or it doesn't qualify as peer-reviewed research.

To tell you the truth, Dr. Venter is a real person and his research is real. Trust me.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Where are the citations????????? You're posting articles with no references. This is how naive you are - you buy into an idea with absolutely no research.

So where are the 200 citations??????????????

other branches of Genetic Engineering - Life engineering life.





Trust me, this branch of science is real and are peer-reviewed.

As for - evolution, it's a dead-end endeavor.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Where are the citations????????? You're posting articles with no references. This is how naive you are - you buy into an idea with absolutely no research.

So where are the 200 citations??????????????

So going back to my question:

Did they create life from pre-existing life?

Here's the article again:

...

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

...

I await your reply.

199 evidence more to go after you answer this simple question:

Did they create life from existing life?

BTW - you can ask Grim to help you as he now considers himself/herself a god. Imagine that, a god of evolution.

a reply to: edmc^2

I'll just take your "no answer" position on the citations as a "I don't know, I never knew, and I don't care to know".

You're an outright fraud.

a reply to: edmc^2

Trust me, this branch of science is real and are peer-reviewed.

Then where are the citations???????????? You're a fraud. You're a Ken Ham clone out for the money. You suck in the lame, lazy and the crazy, build an "ark" and scam people out of their money. Which scam are you part of? Who are you trying to collect money from today????

I think Coop found himself on welfare and food stamps after attempting to sell the program. Is that where you want to be????

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

I'll just take your "no answer" position on the citations as a "I don't know, I never knew, and I don't care to know".

You're an outright fraud.

hehehehe.

You mean, you don't think and you don't believe what Dr. Venter was actual research and experiment?

Do you mean, his actual words can't be used as a citation?

Do you mean the findings and reports can't be used as citations?

WELL, YOU'VE JUST CONFIRMED WHAT I SAID IN THE OP.

"The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court."

So, I take it then you can't answer my simple question.

Exact word and description by Dr. Venter



Did they create life from pre-existing life?

Here's the citation again for your edification:

... First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer. Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one. Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

crickets???

or chicken???

Which one do you prefer?

I think everyone here now knows what you are - huff n puff.

You might need to ask for help from Grim, the self-designated god of evolution.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Trust me, this branch of science is real and are peer-reviewed.

Then where are the citations???????????? You're a fraud. You're a Ken Ham clone out for the money. You suck in the lame, lazy and the crazy, build an "ark" and scam people out of their money. Which scam are you part of? Who are you trying to collect money from today????

I think Coop found himself on welfare and food stamps after attempting to sell the program. Is that where you want to be????

hehehehe.

You mean, you don't think and you don't believe that what Dr. Venter did was an actual and research and experiment?

Do you mean, his actual words can't be used as a citation?

Do you mean the findings and reports can't be used as citations?

WELL, YOU'VE JUST CONFIRMED WHAT I SAID IN THE OP.

"The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court."

So, I take it then you can't answer my simple question.

Exact word and description by Dr. Venter



Did they create life from pre-existing life?

Here's the citation again for your edification:

... First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer. Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one. Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

crickets???

or chicken???

Which one do you prefer?

I think everyone here now knows what you are - huff n puff.

You might need to ask for help from Grim, the self-designated god of evolution.

Ken who? Grabbing for straw, eh?

a reply to: edmc^2

You said you had peer-reviewed research papers. Where are they????

a reply to: edmc^2

Ken who? Grabbing for straw, eh?

You just outed yourself. Swim with any dinosaurs this summer in Kentucky?

a reply to: edmc^2

Where is the citation? Post the links to the research papers.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

You said you had peer-reviewed research papers. Where are they????

now you're just wasting everyone's time.

a reply to: edmc^2

Where are the citations? Where are the 200 peer-reviewed articles you posted? You're a fraud. You never had 200 research articles. In fact, you don't even have one!

Fraud.

a reply to: Phantom423

Apparently in this day and age Youtube is the end all be all of knowledge

Sufficient for proof, facts, citations, and anything else

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

You said you had peer-reviewed research papers. Where are they????

now you're just wasting everyone's time.

Says the guy who claimed 200 citations to support your position. Stop wasting our time and show the citations. You DO have 200 citations right? Or was it hyperbolic pandering?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

You said you had peer-reviewed research papers. Where are they????

now you're just wasting everyone's time.

Says the guy who claimed 200 citations to support your position. Stop wasting our time and show the citations. You DO have 200 citations right? Or was it hyperbolic pandering?

And the goal post moves. As soon as I post a citation - which I already did. An actual video of the person who conducted the study and researched it, who pioneered it along with teams of scientists - you people moved the goal post.

Tell me Vlar, if you really are an honest person. Why is this video conference by Dr. Venter not admissible or as good as a citation?

Fact is, it's one of you who provided it.




In any case, I've proven my point for this thread and actually added more info to my list as to why evolutionists are so dishonest.