Patterico's Pontifications

It’d be pretty cool if this works, just for the advances in genetics. I don’t see how this scientific experiment could connect with tarted-up philosphy, however. So I’m going to assume that you’re joking even if you say you’re serious. ^_____^

Katsu (ac4529) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:01 am

I think that’s a very safe assumption.

Although, honestly, the bacterium resulting from this, if it works, should classify as intelligently designed, since I don’t think that the scientists working on this are that dumb.

Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:22 am

Bwahahaha! Fear, o advocates of Intelligent Design! For your God is a geeky dude in a lab named BOB.

I like that. “For I am the Lord, thy BOB.” In a couple billion years, the bacteria will have taken over, evolved, and founded the Church of Bob.

Katsu (ac4529) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:29 am

There already is one.

See also the Wikipedia entry.

Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:36 am

Indeed, its an interesting experiment (though should this take place on the space station or maybe the moon, just for safety). It does seem that to suggest that this is creating life from no-life is inaccurate. The constructed DNA will apparently have to be inserted into a previously living cell membrane, not an accidental coloidal structure in clay silt or whatever is the current thinking on the origin of life. It seem more like a form of cloning, albeit, with a custom tailored genetic code.

Tob

toby928 (99ba2b) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:39 am

Depends on how they finally do it- as the article noted, the difficulty is that bacteria don’t have a nucleus you can just pop out.

Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:46 am

Right, AC, but am I wrong about the cellular membrane? It was just a popular article not a scientific paper but it did seem that they will have to bootstrap themselves with the stripped husk of a preexisting organism. When they can create life from non-life I’ll be impressed. (wait, I am impressed with this if they pull it off, I’m just not IMPRESSED in a Creator kind of way 😉

Tob

toby928 (99ba2b) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:53 am

Side track, something about digital organisms as a way to test Darwin.
This is a 5 pages article but the link has only one and one-eighth page. It is by Carl Zimmer, Discover, Feb 2005, pg 29-35.

Yi Ling (ed6882) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:57 am

Oh! I forgot the link 🙂
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/?page=3

Yi Ling (ed6882) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:59 am

I do think that they’re going to try to get it to work first, because there is all sorts of difficulty in starting a DNA protein-building process from scratch.

That, though, is because they’re more interested in seeing how low they can go with things rather than actually creating something entirely from the ground up.

If they wanted to, they could try to make the membrane too. I forget the name of the structure, but you can make something very similar to a cellular membrane (without the good stuff inside of it) by a fairly simple process. We did it in my high school biology lab. I suppose that fiddling with that could, possibly, create an artificial membrane into which the DNA could be placed.

Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 9:00 am

Yi Ling- check out the other ID post’s comments. I’ve been discussing Avida (and it’s parent program Tierra) in a lot of detail there.

Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 9:01 am

Yi Ling- check out the other ID post’s comments. I’ve been discussing Avida (and it’s parent program Tierra) in a lot of detail there.

Clam, here? as in with reference to your link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/ above? Puzzled…

The work is an extreme example of a burgeoning new field in science known as synthetic biology. It relies on advances in computer technology that permit the easy assembly of the chemical bits, known as nucleotides, that make up DNA.

But even if the team can assemble all of the bug’s 500,000 DNA chemicals (roughly 35,000 has been the record so far), no one knows if the organism will be viable. Will simply synthesizing a chemical sequence spark life?

A cursory reading of Carl Zimmer’s article, “Testing Darwin” at Discovery, Feb 2005 pp29-35 suggests no DNA. http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/?page=3 [ part of article ]

[ not from link, unless you register to read full article or get hard copy Discovery]Life on Earth is based on DNA. But we can’t exclude the possibility that life could evolve from a completely different system of molecules. ….. If Dorn is right, discovery of non-DNA life would become less spectacular because it would mean that we have already stumbled across it here on Earth- in East Lansing, Michigan.

Correct me if I understood it wrongly, that the difference is DNA approach versus non DNA approach, and further that based on yours DNA approach, you opine ID is real and is it too? evolution is not real? while non DNA approach opines it shows how evolution can now be observed in East Lansing, Michigan?

Yi Ling- check out the other ID post’s comments.

You mean here or some where else? Here there seems no reference to Avida.

Yi Ling (7f56d0) — 12/21/2005 @ 4:53 pm

This other post.

Look especially for the evolution of an equals operator.

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 5:18 pm

“After years of dedicated work, using complex computer models in a carefully controlled lab environment, scientists are confident that they might be able to get a bunch of amino acids to form into a life-ish sort of dealy, maybe, by engineering specific and optimized chains of essential elements in just the right combination under ideal condition. But they aren’t sure exactly how.”

Yeah, evolution is pretty much a lock, I’d say.

Partisan Pundit (263854) — 12/21/2005 @ 5:27 pm

[Darwinism has lead to the extinction of this comment. Or was it ID? After all, I am as GOD in this post. Man will never know]

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 5:43 pm

This

I’m totally serious. It is not a theory, it is a fact. And evolution did not occur. Not one iota.

seems inconsistent with

No one said anything about evolution. We’re talking about intelligent design here.

Clam, how do you explain the apparent difference?

Yi Ling (23c99d) — 12/21/2005 @ 5:46 pm

Human error. It will be naturally selected out of the comments…

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 5:57 pm

Clam, I am still unclear with your change to post 15. Maybe if I could ask you again, my earlier observation …

Correct me if I understood it wrongly, that the difference is DNA approach versus non DNA approach, and further that based on your[s] DNA approach, you opine ID is real and is it too? evolution is not real? while non DNA approach opines it shows how evolution can now be observed in East Lansing, Michigan?

I did cursorily read through your directed post but am still unclear and thus post this query again.

Yi Ling (f52aaf) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:21 pm

Can you say “horseshit”? It’s a nasty word for science fiction. If there starting point is not the energy produced by the the Big Bang, which became hydrogen, which became haeavier atoms, which much, much, later combined to produce molecules … . HORSESHIT.

nk (b57bfb) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:29 pm

Ok, let me walk through it.

Post 15 was in error- I forgot what I said in the actual post. Rather than leave the error, I changed it with a Darwin/ID joke.

As for the actual post itself, the entire point was to play on the literal meaning of the phrase “intelligent design.” While ID normally means “GOD!!!” in this case, the intelligent designers are a bunch of microbiologists. Because they explicitly say “hey, we’re going to go build this microbe with a ridiculously short genetic pattern.” Because the microbe’s genetic code came about by design, evolution (in this instance) does not exist.

As far as your DNA/non-DNA question, I don’t really understand what you’re driving at. The microbiologists building something are making it out of DNA coding. The second article you link to makes the (to me) unsurprising point that there’s nothing about life qua life that requires deoxyribonucleic acid as the data carrier.

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:33 pm

nk- consider reading the link. I’m being cute. Please breathe.

Also, you might want to check out where the stuff in the Big Bang came from. As best we can figure these days, it literally just popped into existence (vacuum decay and quantum mechanics in general is way awesome like that).

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:35 pm

It’s Alive……It’s Alive…..IT’S ALIVE

Richard (b6db20) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:41 pm

Clam, did they succeed [ or as yet]

…“hey, we’re going to go build this microbe with a ridiculously short genetic pattern.” Because the microbe’s genetic code came about by design, evolution (in this instance) does not exist.

Have they succeed as at todate in the building by design ?

Yi Ling (f52aaf) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:47 pm

Have they ~~succeed~~ succeeded as at todate in the building by design ?

Yi Ling (f52aaf) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:49 pm

They’re setting out to do it. They’ve got the genetic code they want to use, though. Now they’re working on an implementation.

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:09 pm

Clam, so it would not be an instance that genetic code came about by design and not by evolution in this instance [ or as yet].

Even if it did successfully come about by design at onset, it does not and /or will not necessarily preclude evolution taking place thereafter or does it? The futuristic hypothetical designer genetic code could still be subject to evolutionary processes , that is, if you think there is such a process taking place even after inception …

Yi Ling (e0c28a) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:17 pm

This would explain Reid and Pelosi.

btenney (7d0f75) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:25 pm

Clam,

If they wanted to, they could try to make the membrane too. I forget the name of the structure, but you can make something very similar to a cellular membrane (without the good stuff inside of it) by a fairly simple process. We did it in my high school biology lab. I suppose that fiddling with that could, possibly, create an artificial membrane into which the DNA could be placed.

Lucky you , you got to do that insightful “origin of life” experiment. Was it highly successful? It is a recommended experiment by ENSI (Evolution & the Nature of Science Institutes) http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/coacerv.html . for class rooms.

SYNOPSIS
Students mix a carbohydrate solution with a protein solution, adjust the pH, and view coacervates: amoeba-like objects, which change shape, flow, merge, divide, form “vacuoles”, release “vacuole contents”, and show other life-like properties.

PRINCIPAL CONCEPT:
Under suitable conditions, life-like structures can form naturally from relatively simple materials.

ASSOCIATED CONCEPTS:
The origin of life on earth need not have required supernatural forces.

ASSESSABLE OBJECTIVES
1. recognize coacervates [ that’s what they are called :-)]
2. recognize the life-like properties of coacervates.
3. realize that complex life-like cell-like structures can be produced naturally from simple materials with simple changes.

What bothers is, why does science speak of the associated concept that : The origin of life on earth need not have required supernatural forces. As far as I can see, we do not know whether it required supernatural forces or not. But we do observe that “Under suitable conditions, life-like structures can form naturally from relatively simple materials.”

Science does not have the parameters to measure supernatural forces at work; so how does science arrogate and claim the right to say it excludes supernatural forces.

It is the parameters of science that has always to be made clear again and again.
Evolution is a science as well a metaphysical research program unlike other sciences.

I am sorry I have yet to find the time and energy to seriously read more carefully the article “Testing Darwin” and thus have not replied to your query, or rather not been able to do a fair job of replying adequately to your legitimate query.

As far as your DNA/non-DNA question, I don’t really understand what you’re driving at. The microbiologists building something are making it out of DNA coding. The second article you link to makes the (to me) unsurprising point that there’s nothing about life qua life that requires deoxyribonucleic acid as the data carrier.

The delay is my lack of knowledge of the area.

Yi Ling (a85ee2) — 12/22/2005 @ 4:05 am

Did someone say “digital orgasms”?

Wait . . . never mind!

Attila (Pillage Idiot) (dfa1f1) — 12/22/2005 @ 8:42 am

Digital organisms do reproduce but I have not thought whether it is asexual reproduction [ reproduce without mating with opposite gender]. Without checking yet I think it is probably asexual and if so, probably hard luck with your nice try 🙂

Yi Ling (cdabfa) — 12/22/2005 @ 3:14 pm

Wait . . . never mind!

While you are waiting, do mind [ don’t never mind] and do look at earlier discussions, filed under education https://patterico.com/2005/08/03/3411/evolution-and-god/#comments and sub captioned Evolution and God and maybe say point numbered 125 where there are possibly seven or lesser court cases on ID, and this is just one that now raises the controversy and thus the posting by Clam above that spawned these discussions here.

In particular in view of the 7 or less court cases on ID all over the country, consider seriously point numbered 126 at the link. https://patterico.com/2005/08/03/3411/evolution-and-god/#comments

Yi Ling (892b46) — 12/22/2005 @ 4:21 pm

I think Bush makes a good case for Dumb Design.

Charlie (8ea405) — 12/22/2005 @ 4:28 pm

Clam,

As far as your DNA/non-DNA question, I don’t really understand what you’re driving at. The microbiologists building something are making it out of DNA coding. The second article you link to makes the (to me) unsurprising point that there’s nothing about life qua life that requires deoxyribonucleic acid as the data carrier.

I checked on the net and reading from
http://dllab.caltech.edu/research/ I gather that

Avida is an auto-adaptive genetic system designed primarily for use as a platform in Digital or Artificial Life research. In lay terms, Avida is a digital world in which simple computer programs mutate and evolve.

and looking at their research, it is beyond me, apart from the simple idea that non DNA based life is a form of life , different from our life on earth which is DNA based.

I was thinking of getting a better grip on the handle to explain it on your frame of reference of life qua life that requires deoxyribonucleic acid as the data carrier. but do not have the grasp of the knowledge to do so. So let me try it from my simple frame of reference—

Even if as it initially appeared that the experiment you had in mind [which is DNA based] [ was carried out successfully] you opined that based on that experiment, ID is therefore real as your conclusion and you also opined evolution is not real as your further conclusion, and assuming if the experiment does so conclude; I was saying that even then, there is another experiment, which is non DNA based, which shows evolution is real. Thus I said –

Correct me if I understood it wrongly, that the difference is DNA approach versus non DNA approach, and further that based on your[s] DNA approach, you opine ID is real and is it too? evolution is not real? while non DNA approach opines it shows how evolution can now be observed in East Lansing, Michigan?

Happy Christmas and New Year 🙂
No beating around with Happy Holidays 🙂

Yi Ling (dcd78a) — 12/23/2005 @ 4:06 am

Come on Charlie, your difference of opinion should not negate the wondrous existence of mankind, even of any one, let alone Bush, the President of America, whatever your opinion.

The proponents chose to call it ID and it is called ID in courts, so let it be. They have already taken a hard knock with the loss in court.

All I can say, is repeat that those able [scientific knowledge , training, skill] if they think they can impart understanding to the public in ID, their best bet still is in the court room, via amici briefs. Samples http://www.ncseweb.org/selman/ http://columbiacs.blogspot.com/2005/03/computer-science-supreme-court-amicus.html
http://brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/2005/01/selman_amicus_b.html http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/ncse_files_amicus_brief_on_the_history_of_evolution_warning_labels.html http://sippi.aaas.org/ipissues/updates/?res_id=527

Yi Ling (dcd78a) — 12/23/2005 @ 4:14 am

New Scripts Howard/Ohio University Poll Shows Half of U.S. Adults Want ID Taught

The survey of 1005 Americans found that 54% of respondents believe humans and the universe were created in their present form by God in 6 days, 24% believe in evolution, 16% believe that God guided evolution, and 6% were undecided.

Regarding the teaching of Evolution, 69% of respondents agreed that most scientists believe in evolution so it should be taught in Science classes. %20 do not believe evolution should be taught in science classes and 11% were undecided.

Finally, 50% of respondents agreed with President Bush that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution, while 37% disagreed and 13% were undecided.

http://ga1.org/cfi_oncampus/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2078068

🙂 🙂 🙂

Yi Ling (68ed02) — 12/25/2005 @ 10:14 am

Who is this Angry Clam? Why is he so angry?

Mark Daniels (d86eaa) — 12/28/2005 @ 1:49 pm

12/21/2005

Intelligent Design is Real

36 Responses to “Intelligent Design is Real”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out