Now that's my kind of Religion

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 7 of 7 << First < 3 4 5 6 7

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Mar 15 2.21pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am Just for the record jamie, I personally can't get my head round a lot of what you're explaining. It isn't stubbornness, I just can't follow the explanatory steps, particularly in the case of life which you say is up for debate. The fact that you use words like 'probably' indicates that there is no real certainty over anything in this field at all. With single-celled organisms and suchlike we can say that life must come from 'x' because a cell can be broken down chemically in all its parts. But we don't actually know how. Just the manner in which chemicals react and develop. If we could explain it fully then I would have thought scientists would be geared towards a life-creating project that extends beyond the synthetic DNA already created. You mean like clonning real live animals ? No, creating life out of nothing by taking all the necessary elements or chemicals or whatever and producing it in cellular form in a lab. Like life when it starts. Not copying. I'm no scientist but if we can explain the theory of life at a single-cellular level, should it not also be possible to play God and create our own before moving on to more complex organisms? We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life. I posted this recently [Link] This is a Robot that is made out of Lego, what is Extraordinary about this robot is we have digitized the brain of a worm & put it in this robot. What you are seeing isnt just a silly plastic toy rolling about on the floor but a conscious creature encountering its environment for the first time. It is Alive & we made it. I don't deny that, but isn't the brain still a copy of something already existent? Brain signals have been mapped and replicated for ages. What I'm suggesting is creating life from base chemicals or elements or whatever. If it can't be done by us, surely there's no way of proving there wasn't a helping hand? I'm genuinely not trying to be obstinate for the sake of it. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am) Thomas Chang created the first artificial cells in the 1960s. In 2014 Harvard University reported creating artificial self replicating bacterial cells with cell membranes, creating a fully artificial eukaryotic cell. We've had artificial blood cells for decades. Likely as not, life is probably more about the combination of processes, than 'cells'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Mar 15 2.21pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am

Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am

Just for the record jamie, I personally can't get my head round a lot of what you're explaining. It isn't stubbornness, I just can't follow the explanatory steps, particularly in the case of life which you say is up for debate. The fact that you use words like 'probably' indicates that there is no real certainty over anything in this field at all.
With single-celled organisms and suchlike we can say that life must come from 'x' because a cell can be broken down chemically in all its parts. But we don't actually know how. Just the manner in which chemicals react and develop. If we could explain it fully then I would have thought scientists would be geared towards a life-creating project that extends beyond the synthetic DNA already created.

You mean like clonning real live animals ?

No, creating life out of nothing by taking all the necessary elements or chemicals or whatever and producing it in cellular form in a lab. Like life when it starts. Not copying. I'm no scientist but if we can explain the theory of life at a single-cellular level, should it not also be possible to play God and create our own before moving on to more complex organisms?

We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life.

I posted this recently
[Link]

This is a Robot that is made out of Lego, what is Extraordinary about this robot is we have digitized the brain of a worm & put it in this robot. What you are seeing isnt just a silly plastic toy rolling about on the floor but a conscious creature encountering its environment for the first time.

It is Alive & we made it.

I don't deny that, but isn't the brain still a copy of something already existent? Brain signals have been mapped and replicated for ages. What I'm suggesting is creating life from base chemicals or elements or whatever. If it can't be done by us, surely there's no way of proving there wasn't a helping hand?
I'm genuinely not trying to be obstinate for the sake of it.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am)

Thomas Chang created the first artificial cells in the 1960s. In 2014 Harvard University reported creating artificial self replicating bacterial cells with cell membranes, creating a fully artificial eukaryotic cell. We've had artificial blood cells for decades.

Likely as not, life is probably more about the combination of processes, than 'cells'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Mar 15 2.24pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am Just for the record jamie, I personally can't get my head round a lot of what you're explaining. It isn't stubbornness, I just can't follow the explanatory steps, particularly in the case of life which you say is up for debate. The fact that you use words like 'probably' indicates that there is no real certainty over anything in this field at all. With single-celled organisms and suchlike we can say that life must come from 'x' because a cell can be broken down chemically in all its parts. But we don't actually know how. Just the manner in which chemicals react and develop. If we could explain it fully then I would have thought scientists would be geared towards a life-creating project that extends beyond the synthetic DNA already created. You mean like clonning real live animals ? No, creating life out of nothing by taking all the necessary elements or chemicals or whatever and producing it in cellular form in a lab. Like life when it starts. Not copying. I'm no scientist but if we can explain the theory of life at a single-cellular level, should it not also be possible to play God and create our own before moving on to more complex organisms? We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life. I posted this recently [Link] This is a Robot that is made out of Lego, what is Extraordinary about this robot is we have digitized the brain of a worm & put it in this robot. What you are seeing isnt just a silly plastic toy rolling about on the floor but a conscious creature encountering its environment for the first time. It is Alive & we made it. I don't deny that, but isn't the brain still a copy of something already existent? Brain signals have been mapped and replicated for ages. What I'm suggesting is creating life from base chemicals or elements or whatever. If it can't be done by us, surely there's no way of proving there wasn't a helping hand? I'm genuinely not trying to be obstinate for the sake of it. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am) The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions. We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Mar 15 2.24pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am

Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am

You mean like clonning real live animals ?

We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life.

I posted this recently
[Link]

It is Alive & we made it.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am)

The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions.

We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles 20 Mar 15 2.48pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am Just for the record jamie, I personally can't get my head round a lot of what you're explaining. It isn't stubbornness, I just can't follow the explanatory steps, particularly in the case of life which you say is up for debate. The fact that you use words like 'probably' indicates that there is no real certainty over anything in this field at all. With single-celled organisms and suchlike we can say that life must come from 'x' because a cell can be broken down chemically in all its parts. But we don't actually know how. Just the manner in which chemicals react and develop. If we could explain it fully then I would have thought scientists would be geared towards a life-creating project that extends beyond the synthetic DNA already created. You mean like clonning real live animals ? No, creating life out of nothing by taking all the necessary elements or chemicals or whatever and producing it in cellular form in a lab. Like life when it starts. Not copying. I'm no scientist but if we can explain the theory of life at a single-cellular level, should it not also be possible to play God and create our own before moving on to more complex organisms? We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life. I posted this recently [Link] This is a Robot that is made out of Lego, what is Extraordinary about this robot is we have digitized the brain of a worm & put it in this robot. What you are seeing isnt just a silly plastic toy rolling about on the floor but a conscious creature encountering its environment for the first time. It is Alive & we made it. I don't deny that, but isn't the brain still a copy of something already existent? Brain signals have been mapped and replicated for ages. What I'm suggesting is creating life from base chemicals or elements or whatever. If it can't be done by us, surely there's no way of proving there wasn't a helping hand? I'm genuinely not trying to be obstinate for the sake of it. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am) The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions. We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian). So can we create from scratch or have we already created from scratch (no copying, just from base elements or chemicals) a single celled organism? I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.
Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles

20 Mar 15 2.48pm

Send a Private Message to EaglesEaglesEagles

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am

Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am

You mean like clonning real live animals ?

We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life.

I posted this recently
[Link]

It is Alive & we made it.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am)

The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions.

We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian).

So can we create from scratch or have we already created from scratch (no copying, just from base elements or chemicals) a single celled organism?

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Mar 15 3.20pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 2.48pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am Just for the record jamie, I personally can't get my head round a lot of what you're explaining. It isn't stubbornness, I just can't follow the explanatory steps, particularly in the case of life which you say is up for debate. The fact that you use words like 'probably' indicates that there is no real certainty over anything in this field at all. With single-celled organisms and suchlike we can say that life must come from 'x' because a cell can be broken down chemically in all its parts. But we don't actually know how. Just the manner in which chemicals react and develop. If we could explain it fully then I would have thought scientists would be geared towards a life-creating project that extends beyond the synthetic DNA already created. You mean like clonning real live animals ? No, creating life out of nothing by taking all the necessary elements or chemicals or whatever and producing it in cellular form in a lab. Like life when it starts. Not copying. I'm no scientist but if we can explain the theory of life at a single-cellular level, should it not also be possible to play God and create our own before moving on to more complex organisms? We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life. I posted this recently [Link] This is a Robot that is made out of Lego, what is Extraordinary about this robot is we have digitized the brain of a worm & put it in this robot. What you are seeing isnt just a silly plastic toy rolling about on the floor but a conscious creature encountering its environment for the first time. It is Alive & we made it. I don't deny that, but isn't the brain still a copy of something already existent? Brain signals have been mapped and replicated for ages. What I'm suggesting is creating life from base chemicals or elements or whatever. If it can't be done by us, surely there's no way of proving there wasn't a helping hand? I'm genuinely not trying to be obstinate for the sake of it. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am) The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions. We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian). So can we create from scratch or have we already created from scratch (no copying, just from base elements or chemicals) a single celled organism? Yes, it seems, Eukaryote cells are single cell lifeforms, and as pointed above, there have been successful artificial creation of Eukaryote cells, albeit fairly recently. Obviously, not a jellyfish, but eukaryote cells are living, and the cell replicated, it is essentially a bacteria. Prior to this synthetic RNA has been introduced to cells to create self replicating new life forms (single cell organisms tend replicate through parasitic means of injecting RNA). So I'm going for yes, but there are sufficient grounds to move the goal posts - because they created the RNA synthetically, and then added it to a cell which had no RNA it seems). Edited by jamiemartin721 (20 Mar 2015 3.24pm) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Mar 15 3.20pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 2.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am

Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am

You mean like clonning real live animals ?

We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life.

I posted this recently
[Link]

It is Alive & we made it.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am)

The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions.

We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian).

So can we create from scratch or have we already created from scratch (no copying, just from base elements or chemicals) a single celled organism?

Yes, it seems, Eukaryote cells are single cell lifeforms, and as pointed above, there have been successful artificial creation of Eukaryote cells, albeit fairly recently.

Obviously, not a jellyfish, but eukaryote cells are living, and the cell replicated, it is essentially a bacteria. Prior to this synthetic RNA has been introduced to cells to create self replicating new life forms (single cell organisms tend replicate through parasitic means of injecting RNA).

So I'm going for yes, but there are sufficient grounds to move the goal posts - because they created the RNA synthetically, and then added it to a cell which had no RNA it seems).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (20 Mar 2015 3.24pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles 20 Mar 15 3.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 3.20pm Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 2.48pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am Just for the record jamie, I personally can't get my head round a lot of what you're explaining. It isn't stubbornness, I just can't follow the explanatory steps, particularly in the case of life which you say is up for debate. The fact that you use words like 'probably' indicates that there is no real certainty over anything in this field at all. With single-celled organisms and suchlike we can say that life must come from 'x' because a cell can be broken down chemically in all its parts. But we don't actually know how. Just the manner in which chemicals react and develop. If we could explain it fully then I would have thought scientists would be geared towards a life-creating project that extends beyond the synthetic DNA already created. You mean like clonning real live animals ? No, creating life out of nothing by taking all the necessary elements or chemicals or whatever and producing it in cellular form in a lab. Like life when it starts. Not copying. I'm no scientist but if we can explain the theory of life at a single-cellular level, should it not also be possible to play God and create our own before moving on to more complex organisms? We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life. I posted this recently [Link] This is a Robot that is made out of Lego, what is Extraordinary about this robot is we have digitized the brain of a worm & put it in this robot. What you are seeing isnt just a silly plastic toy rolling about on the floor but a conscious creature encountering its environment for the first time. It is Alive & we made it. I don't deny that, but isn't the brain still a copy of something already existent? Brain signals have been mapped and replicated for ages. What I'm suggesting is creating life from base chemicals or elements or whatever. If it can't be done by us, surely there's no way of proving there wasn't a helping hand? I'm genuinely not trying to be obstinate for the sake of it. Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am) The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions. We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian). So can we create from scratch or have we already created from scratch (no copying, just from base elements or chemicals) a single celled organism? Yes, it seems, Eukaryote cells are single cell lifeforms, and as pointed above, there have been successful artificial creation of Eukaryote cells, albeit fairly recently. Obviously, not a jellyfish, but eukaryote cells are living, and the cell replicated, it is essentially a bacteria. Prior to this synthetic RNA has been introduced to cells to create self replicating new life forms (single cell organisms tend replicate through parasitic means of injecting RNA). So I'm going for yes, but there are sufficient grounds to move the goal posts - because they created the RNA synthetically, and then added it to a cell which had no RNA it seems). Edited by jamiemartin721 (20 Mar 2015 3.24pm) Ach, I don't know. Let's wait and see for developments in the future. I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.
Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles

20 Mar 15 3.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 3.20pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 2.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 11.40am

Quote Ouzo Dan at 20 Mar 2015 11.34am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.22am

Quote dannyh at 20 Mar 2015 10.11am

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 10.07am

You mean like clonning real live animals ?

We have done, to a point, its not biological but it is undeniably life.

I posted this recently
[Link]

It is Alive & we made it.

Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (20 Mar 2015 11.41am)

The problem is, that life, is a collection of processes of organic material in incredibly complicated combinations, number in the billions of interactions.

We can create the parts, its more a problem of the getting the parts togeather. After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian).

So can we create from scratch or have we already created from scratch (no copying, just from base elements or chemicals) a single celled organism?

Yes, it seems, Eukaryote cells are single cell lifeforms, and as pointed above, there have been successful artificial creation of Eukaryote cells, albeit fairly recently.

So I'm going for yes, but there are sufficient grounds to move the goal posts - because they created the RNA synthetically, and then added it to a cell which had no RNA it seems).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (20 Mar 2015 3.24pm)

Ach, I don't know. Let's wait and see for developments in the future.

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Mar 15 3.36pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 3.25pm Ach, I don't know. Let's wait and see for developments in the future. In theory it should eventually revolutionize medicine, as it would allow for treatment to be delivered through a viral agent (you'd remove the RNA from say the flu virus and introduce new RNA that renders flu resistance or reprograms renal clear cells in cancer etc). Of course its worth noting that this experiment itself, to create a new self replicating life form, cost nearly 40m dollars to conduct - Another factor as to why its unlikely that you'd ever have a true experiment to create cells from base chemicals - It would be prohibitively expensive research with no real value. Where as being able to introduce DNA and RNA, that has been either modified or entirely constructed synthetically, would be at least have massive results for the development of biotechnology. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Mar 15 3.36pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Mar 2015 3.25pm

Ach, I don't know. Let's wait and see for developments in the future.

In theory it should eventually revolutionize medicine, as it would allow for treatment to be delivered through a viral agent (you'd remove the RNA from say the flu virus and introduce new RNA that renders flu resistance or reprograms renal clear cells in cancer etc).

Of course its worth noting that this experiment itself, to create a new self replicating life form, cost nearly 40m dollars to conduct - Another factor as to why its unlikely that you'd ever have a true experiment to create cells from base chemicals - It would be prohibitively expensive research with no real value.

Where as being able to introduce DNA and RNA, that has been either modified or entirely constructed synthetically, would be at least have massive results for the development of biotechnology.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 20 Mar 15 3.47pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian). He probably kept fuking up the hands Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 20 Mar 15 3.47pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Mar 2015 2.24pm

After all, evolution (or God) took 3.499999bn years to make the first homo sapian).

He probably kept fuking up the hands

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 7 of 7 << First < 3 4 5 6 7

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Now that's my kind of Religion

Site Map

Sponsors