Whether or not life has been made in the lab depends on what you mean by or how you define life. If life is defined as a self replicating system guided by Darwinian natural selection then yes, life has been made in the lab. If you mean have actual living cells been made completely from scratch in a way that is a reasonable facsimile of the natural world then no it hasn't. The main problem with knowing how to make life from scratch and making it is time. Most research grants don't last for millenia. Using artificial means to speed the process up negates the experiment completely.
The simple fact here is Inow is referring to articles that he claims show that we can create life, when the scientist that are doing experiments are not claiming that.
Life is a process that is more than the sum of its parts. yes we can fuse parts and we can even do experiments that recreate certain process, but we do not know all the steps of first origins of how the process started. We are at work at it but nothing yet has been created that is called life.
__________________
I do not know what I seem to the world, but to myself I appear to have been like a boy playing upon the seashore and diverting myself by now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay before me all undiscovered. - Sir Isaac Newton
The simple fact here is Inow is referring to articles that he claims show that we can create life, when the scientist that are doing experiments are not claiming that.
Life is a process that is more than the sum of its parts. yes we can fuse parts and we can even do experiments that recreate certain process, but we do not know all the steps of first origins of how the process started. We are at work at it but nothing yet has been created that is called life.
I'm not really arguing against your point.
But do you believe that despite our ability to generate "life" in a laboratory, we have accumulated enough evidence to support the theory of Abiogenesis, or something along those lines? Essentially, would you agree that there is enough evidence to support the idea that life has come about naturally on this planet?
__________________ When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
But do you believe that despite our ability to generate "life" in a laboratory, we have accumulated enough evidence to support the theory of Abiogenesis, or something along those lines? Essentially, would you agree that there is enough evidence to support the idea that life has come about naturally on this planet?
Yes, It came about naturally, once the conditions were optimal, I would imagine it came about rather suddenly.
__________________
I do not know what I seem to the world, but to myself I appear to have been like a boy playing upon the seashore and diverting myself by now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay before me all undiscovered. - Sir Isaac Newton
My above post is the best definition of life we have in biology thus far. More to the point however and simply put.
No one as yet has claimed or exclaimed "its alive" in any lab anywhere.
What the links provided actually claimed is that they have created "cells" from scratch. The cells comprised a lipid cell wall enclosing a short strand of either RNA or DNA. The cells also showed signs of very simple reactivity. Certainly nowhere near a modern cell structure, but also just as certainly, "close".
__________________ Hypography Forums Moderator -- - - - - - What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are.
Epictetus, Greek Philosopher The map is NOT the territory.
Korzybski, Polish-American Philosopher
Reps to you for this post once I spread it around a bit, I especially enjoyed the S. Fox article. Thank you iNow.
Yeah, that's one of the best I've seen. I saw it shared a while back when a biologist was spanking a creationist at another forum, and I quickly added it to my arsenal.
I thought this quote posted over at The Loom was quite interesting. Apparently as Linnaeus inadvertently made a rough sketch of common descent with his classifications, he was troubled by the thought of stirring up trouble with the religious when dealing with humans:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linnaeus
It is not pleasing that I placed humans among the primates, but man knows himself. Let us get the words out of the way. It will be equal to me by whatever name they are treated. But I ask you and the whole world a generic difference between men and simians in accordance with the principles of Natural History. I certainly know none. If only someone would tell me one! If I called man an ape or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have, in accordance with the law of the discipline [of Natural History].
