@that1stupidkid 613 if you cant do what nature does every single second then appreciate that the is a God. after all the bragging about scientific advancement, this little miracle seems impossible? I rest my case
@swandike We don't have the technology or resources to individual place molecules to make a cell. It would take billions of trials lots of time and energy to replicate the singularity that occurred billions of years ago.
This only proves intelligences creates life this is not good for evolution because, this is proof life dictates design.Without the starting chemicals designed this is not possible.Looks like this backfired drastically.
@jacobromu Well i think this is enough for any thinker to deduct that science is observation therefor concluding we observe intelligence making life using another form of intelligence(computers).We have NEVER seen non life self assemble and become life now have we,if we did then we would already know evolution is true.We must conclude that life makes life it is very well documented every time a child is born. To think otherwise is simply nonsense and is indeed false.The evidence speaks clearly.
@clawedification computers are not a form of intelligence... they are a tool used by intelligence. synthetic life as described above in no way proves creationism... it is a showcasing of how evolution works. the evidence does speak clearly, but not clear enough for those who are too biased to see it.
Poor blind one, this is computer aided and guided by an intelligent mind.Watch the video and you will see them say this multiple times.Intelligence programed the computer in the first place and doesn't do anything without input.They started with lintel! Did the first cell have such input?If so what is the argument about? I concur the evidence speaks clearly.
@clawedification I never said something intelligent didn't created synthetic life; That's why it's synthetic. (?) We use evolutionary theory too, in non-biological ways, but it doesn't mean intelligence created it in biology. We use rocks and can make rocks, again, doesn't mean intelligence created it. Your logic if flawed. Replicating what our universe has come up with doesn't necessitate a designer of the universe. Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean a god did it.
Firstly i accept that everything is finite and had a beginning,my understanding is that nothing comes to exist without a cause. Things look designed because they are.Common sense is obviously not that common.
@clawedification It's not common sense that things the look designed are not, which is why your common sense fails you. Have you considered things that we use evolutionary theory to design, i.e., the "intelligence" within evolutionary theory being what guides the design process? What about these things that are not designed at all but evolved and appear designed? Not only does it show "creation" from nature but proves evolutionary theory works.
@clawedification The problem is common sense cannot explain complexities such as emergence, the creation of complexity from simplicity through simple laws (of nature). Your common sense leads you gravely wrong, and you must educate yourself to snap out of it. For example, how does your common sense explain the alpha-beta divide we see in DNA? It's proof of evolution, but if evolution is wrong, and you are right, how does your theory explain it?
@clawedification What? To understand evolution and science it requires an education, effort, and a lack of religious bias... none of which you seem to have, and it appears each lacking of these things attributes to the lacking of the others. You are lost. And if you are not, then explain the alpha beta divide by your theory. If you are to trump evolution which perfectly explains it then you must explain it with your theory, it's not good enough to just ignorantly choose what you wish to be true.
@clawedification And here's another challenge: In what way, if evolution were true, and if abiogenesis were true, in what way would us creating a synthetic cell disprove it? With this line of thought you can see just how blind you and your logic are in using this to prove against evolution. Pure absurdity.
@matthewdoucette This is not related to the topic,I said it matters as we have never seen non life self assemble. My conclusion would still be the same we have not seen life come from non life. As the situation is I have not left the boundaries of observation. No assumption was made about evolution,I dont care if you think you are a monkey! No I wont even speculate for reason of leaving the observable evidence.
@clawedification Since when does evolution say we are monkeys? Common ancestors. And as I have said us creating synthetic cells doesn't mean yours are synthetic. How is it proof one way or the other?
Again i do not care about ape like ancestors,monkey is a generic term. One more time try to read slower so it has more time to sink in! What was this experiment? Who collected all the data? When you answer these questions and do not assume life self assembles its pretty obvious.Observation is key to discovery not ideas that are never observed. This is what we have, intelligent input,non life becomes living.Show me the observable data on the 3 billion year old common ancestor.Intel=life
@clawedification Life doesn't self assembly in the way your mind thinks of it, so we agree that it doesn't self assemble. It evolves. Google emergence, and study it, and then come back and explain how all the examples of emergence are wrong. You are right that observation is key, and we observe evolution as it would be observed if it were true. You thought evolution was an idea? Darwin discovered it by observation. Research it. The evidence you think doesn't exist, exists.
I do not accept the evolve word in a macro sense this has never been documented as information being increased in d.n.a. Micro evolution is completely seen and this is what Darwin was observing all the finches still interbreed even though they have different beaks.This does not draw me to the conclusion that a fish becomes a lizard over enough time.(time is your God)Right where we can no longer see is the problem,no one has seen a cow turn into a whale! Observational conclusions are more valid.
@clawedification We already know evolution is true, the creation of life is abiogenesis, a completely different process. Evolution is a fact, and the evolution theory that explains that fact is so far one of the most powerful scientific theories we have. We have seen life evolve and we have evidence that was life was more simplistic before, but because it goes against your beliefs you think it is wrong. You have no evidence supporting your view, just your biases.
But anyway, can't someone at YouTube please ban superstitious/religious morons from making comments at science videos? Or any other videos they don't understand anything of....err...meaning virtually all videos? Get them off YouTube, because their stupidity is so painful to read or listen to, and of course potentially dangerous for kids or the mentally challenged..: (
No, it ISN'T any kind of "reality" whatsoever! ROFL! Leave it to the damned "scientific" (term used mockingly) channels to say such stupid shit! It doesn't matter anymore. I have had my kids get up and leave "science" class at least 4 times now(in 3 years) when they start their bullshit "global warming, evolution, and other shit. You know what? There's nothing anyone can do about it :) They're both still honor students. No wonder this country is so stupid! Others are so far ahead of us....
@badtolzstandby The other countries that are so far ahead of us do not dispute global warming and evolution, they're accepted as fact. I wonder why we're so far behind.....
I find it somewhat depressing how anytime i view one of these amazing discovery video's that don't support blind faith, the comments are bombarded by sad arguments that interrupt intelligent conversation, it's like your brainstorming amazing ideas with some very intelligent people and someone kicks the door down and complains about your clean shoes on the carpet.
For all you dumb-ass sci-fi nerdy geeks,,,,,, Pay attention,j. Craig Venter stated" Life was not in the DNA or the chromosomes,it was in cytoplasm of the ALREADY LIVING cells" They used LIVE yeast!!!! For a demo of this experiment- We can create life tha same way with a cardbord box. 1.Take clean cardbord box. 2.place in germ free room. 3.Place live puppy in box 4.check box for signs of life=heart beat ,breathing. TA-DA !!! It's ALIVE!!! It's ALIVE!!! We did it!!!!!!
@ekajeht Wow, do everyone a favour and stay away from intellegent discussion you have absolutly no understanding of. This video might be more up your alley : watch?v=NBWQCHb95rg
@ekajeht Science has created an organisim whose DNA sequence is written by humans on a computer and then assembled manually from its base chemical components. The dna, the essence of the creatures being is entirely manmade. Science has created a new species on a computer that it had complete control over the design of, you claim this is nothing?
Get an education, i shall not reply again. Fools such as yourself should stick to their dayjobs, science is demonstrably beyond your capacity.
Not necessarily. Now that we have done this, the next stage would be to build an entire lifeform from scratch, DNA by DNA molecule. Its only a matter of time, very short time, before we succeed. I would say within another decade or so.
@ekajeht Not actually true, as he says here when they removed the genetic material from the nucleus it in effect kills it so when they introduced the artificial genome and it began to divide and replicate they have actually changed something that was dead into something alive. If you mean the material they used was already in existence ofcoarse it was but thats also the case with nature, you can only use materials that are here.
@ekajeht If you mean they did not start the self replicating divergent pattern from scratch ofcoarse they didn't because we dont actually know how that works yet. But the point is the empty cell was not replicating (dead) the DNA they created was not replicating (dead) when they put the two together it began replicating (alive). Another point ofcoarse is that god said to noah that all the life that will ever be will be on the ark. DOH new one here!
Oh look, it's a modern day Frankenstein. This is a bad idea period! One of too many. The next obvious stage is sentience, Wouldn't self awareness lead to survival instinct and as a result our own extermination? Is it ethical who's to judge? Is it practical ? Yes, it has it's applications. Is it thought out with common sense? NO. Will there be the abilty to safeguard this kind of tech?NO.
Don't fuck with mother nature she's a vindictive bitch.
@JAG03064 No we should understand everything about the code of life and develop the technology to completely redesign ourselves. Compared to whats possible we are lower then cavemen and also destined to die out on this puny planet that is already too small for us.
@DutchNordic You for real?...So you believe in manifest destiny also? The arrogant belief that all life exists for our consumption and we own whatever we conquer. We are parasites on the asshole of this planet and abusing that right to even be here....period.
@JAG03064 Were not just parasites but we are intelligent and self aware, the first species that stopped blindly obeying its genes and instincts and started giving purpose to themselves! Before us, who was there to call nature beautiful? We have to safeguard this intelligence no matter what. That means to become much more powerful and also to spread out into space, because we are much too fragile as a species.
@DutchNordic You actually believe we have that right? So you are saying we are supreme beings much like a god and are entitled? Isn't that blasphemy and down right arrogant? Well when the little green men get here I'll send them to your door you can be their slave or cattle because that's what you'll be considered as in their eyes if what you say is true.
@JAG03064 We are what we are and there is no universal right or wrong. Theres just us, earth(who doesnt give a damn neither) and the possibility that we wipe ourselves out, or get wiped out by a cosmic disaster.
I dont think its arrogant to see intelligence as a rare and precious thing that needs to be preserved.
@DutchNordic You take morality out of the equation and morality is what makes up the better part of humanity. The ability to make choices not just for yourself but that effect others not just your own species. Your environment is what sustains you correct? You can't have one without the other can you? Good luck with that.
@JAG03064 I dont think you have to take morality out of the equation. The creation of synthetic life wasn't immoral and next next step doesn't have to be immoral neither. In time his technology can be used to improve our genetic code, which means our health, intellect, genetic diseases, lifespan etc. The possibilities in the future are unimaginable and awesome. We cant just stop that progress because we are so paranoid of some kind of doomsday scenario.
@JAG03064 We are the only race on this planet that has the power to do it. Everything else is a product of evolution.
Also remember that the only reason we have food on our table is because we were breeding and selecting our crops and farm animals the same way hitler planned to do with humans right? Without these modified products we couldnt even feed half the people in the world.
it seems like most of these people commenting don't realize the potential of this technology. what happens when a new being is made up entirely of these artificial cells? what if it begans to apply this to all living cells?
@MikeeC1978 The potential is to improve crop and animal yield/size, and make copies of body parts to extend life. It's money, money, money for the biotech industry. So what else is new?
interesting article about a jellyfish that has evolved the potential to be immortal. Just search turritopsis nutricula on wiki or google, as it wont allow me to post a link. Another win for science.
Wow Biblewinscience fail is a dumbass, looks like a typical creasonis though dodging questions, and not supplying evidence backed by data. ALso saying evolution must be wrong becuase it cant prove something like mortality. EVOLUTION DOES NOT TRY TO EXPLAIN MORTALITY fuck tard
@BibleWinScienceFail OK Listen evolution does not try to explain mortality. Mortality has many factors influencing, I'm guessing you don't know what oncogenic genes are, or what Apoptosis is? They explain a lot of why we die.
You dumbasss. Ain't it obvious? Death is an evolutionary necessity. Life forms came with it: If the older generation don't die off, how could the new generation they pass their genes on be able survive and compete for resources? Have you even to university?
@TheVoiceOfReason93 bwahahahaaaaaaaa we pass on our genes/dna to our offspring at the point of conception/when we give birth to them you amateur, they do not spontaneously transmit at the point of our death to our offspring!
You misunderstood me - what i mean is death is a necessity. Once the animals had finished procreating, their purpose is fulfilled. If they are still around when the next generation is born they would get in their way, use up the resources and such. That's why there's aging, predation and death and whatnot - For the next generation to prosper, the older generation must die. Does that explain it to you?
@british683 Evolution does explain mortality. If the old do not die, their bad genes remain in the gene pool. Only the "good" in the gene pool should propagate
@harshhpareek Tru but that is a rather simplistic approach, there are more factors than that. A dominant male will have good DNA almost till the day. Sure there will be increased errors with DNA replication with advanced age but considering it is a relativity small amount of DNA that codes for essential proteins and info compared to Junk DNA. Also in the wild it is rare for animals to die from old age. The vast majority will die from predation, sickness or injury long before old age.
ok, could somebody explain to me if what is said in the video has already been done? i mean have they already created a sequence of dna that works to replicate and synthetize in a living organism resulting in this living organism to reproduce? y saw half of this show on tv, but as far as i could stay they havent completed the task. they had only synthetized the dna...
Yes, that guy in this video led the team. The 21st of last month the team created the synthesized the first artificial cell with dna programmed from a computer. The cell lived, reproduced, and produced lipids, qualifying as the first man made lifeform. Btw, you have the internet, why can't you just look this up?
Look up Darwinbots if you want to expiriment with evolution. Theres also a simpler one called Aviola universe, but google doesn't recognize it because its on a free host so you need to start by googling "alife links".
@BibleWinScienceFail science can, and i dont know why you think you would have them! science is not a religion, WHAT THE BEJESUS i dont pray to science, i dont sacrifice my nightly meal on the the alter of evolution! how can you possible say its a belief system when clearly is uses reality's principles to obtain an easier life??
@azmanabdula If you do not believe in God, then you simply replace Him in your life with false gods of your own choosing. (darwin, venter, dawkins, anything) as an atheist you only have to survive in this life and all you have to look forward to is death. science is powerless to solve the problem of mortality. why do we have apoptosis? why do atheists have any morals? they all have their own morals which are simply poor copies of God's moral standards.
@BibleWinScienceFail any historian and theologian will tell you the morals your god apparently gave you, existed long before the bible, theodolus, Confucius both wrote long books about morality, the bible burrowed from those! dawkins,darwin etc are not gods! stop looking for one. (if no one has spoken to god and no one has any creditable evidence of his existence, where do you get off tell people god made the morals standards and by the way which standards!
@azmanabdula the 10 commandments predate all the names u listed. God did make Adam and Eve immortal, as long as they did not sin. but they sinned, so now we are all mortal and die. (why did we "evolve" into mortal creatures?) this explains mortality. evolutionary theory has no explanation whatsoever for mortality.
@BibleWinScienceFail failed response , evolve into a mortal creature? you have lost it, adam and eve did not exist! (besides you haven't answered many of my questions!) mortality, nothing exists forever, NOTHING, GET OVER IT, things decay, even heavier more unstable atoms decay, radioactive dating, but you wouldn't agree with that.evolution isnt the study of immortality. its how species changes over time, you need death for a species to evolve, that explains it! what has religion invented!
@azmanabdula read parsons et al, nature. 1998 "calibrating the mitochondrial clock" showed that all humans are descended from ancesters no older than 6500yrs. so dna proves adam and eve did exists. they let the cat out of the bag.
@BibleWinScienceFail yes maybe 2 significant people 6000 years ago gave birth to a child with a mutated gene,being a mix of the parents almost all genes are different .besides this one gene this person had 6000 years ago must have been useful,therefore he got more women,THERE WERE PEOPLE BEFORE THEM, and of those children the strongest smartest survived over other children, its always happening, just not in society, evolution is harsh, we dont want that on us, but its true. RELIGION INVENTED ??
Evolution does not attempt to explain mortality. Moreover, biological engineers know exactly why we have mortality. Our cells are driven by chromosomes (the material that contains the necessary information to create and drive the cell) and chromosomes have telomeres that protect and cap each end, with each division of a cell, the telomere gets shorter. When it is completely degraded, the cell becomes cancerous and dies. Mortality is a quality of all life.
@drche420 Also since the main goal of life is to pass on our DNA, i would make sense that the loner an animal lives the higher chance it will have of having offspring. (I realize that women lose fertility earlier than men, and that in humans disorders such as autism increased with age, but that is due to errors on the womans side.) But I agree it may be a factor that helps keep population in check, or evolution may be and has been selecting individuals who's cell machinery does not degrade
@drche420 at a young age or activate oncogenes, and evolution may be selecting for individuals who have the ability to live long. I know there is a gene among centurions that is unique to them, i agree evolution does have a factor in mortality, just that your idea was a little simplistic
@BibleWinScienceFail besides none of that explains anything, we havent witnessed mortal life, how can you say it ever existed. FUCK LIVING FOREVER after the first 50 billion years id want to die, BUT YOU CANT, YOUR FUCKED
WHAT IMMORTALITY WHERE your brainwashed really bad TOXIC!
They aren't going to be able to create an entire cell out of raw materials in our lifetime, or our in the next generations lifetime. Proving that it could be done is still a long way away, but they are getting closer. We don't need to play god if there isn't one required to create life.
@all Anti-creationist geneticist Steve Jones is another critic, as quoted in a Guardian profile of Venter:
Jones is sceptical about the hyperbole of breathless headlines. “The idea that this is “playing God” is just daft. What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC — and then saying you have created a computer. It’s not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made about it.”
I once had to grab my grandfathers shotgun when I found someone in my house. I knew it was not functional because of the firing pin. I yelled all I could at him at gun point and shouted "Don't Move a muscle!" When he dropped to his knees to start praying, I freaked out and pulled the trigger by accident. He believes it was god that saved him. I got lucky, not him. If he was a real criminal, I might be dead. Go to college and take some biology and chemistry classes. Somethings are NOT divine.
c. venter, h. smith, c. hutchinson et al. are the 21st century stooges of "molecular clowning." These charlatans used pre-existing Mycoplasma capricolum to "create" their 1st synthetic cell M. mycoides jcvi-syn." What a comical farce of westernized-american-delusional arrogance at play; joe the plumber can do better than that. c. venter's main agenda is to elevate the josef mengele-monsanto-like corporate machines of the g8-nations. YHWH alone is THE CREATOR. Blessing Peace & Shalom,
c. venter, h. smith, c. hutchinson et al. are the 21st century stooges of "molecular clowning." These charlatans used pre-existing Mycoplasma capricolum to "create" their 1st synthetic cell M. mycoides jcvi-syn." What a comical farce of westernized-american-delusional arrogance at play; joe the plumber can do better than that. c. venter's main agenda is to elevate the josef mengele-monsanto-like corporate machines of the g8-nations. YHWH alone is THE CREATOR. Blessing Peace & Shalom,
c. venter, h. smith, c. hutchinson et al. are the 21st century stooges of "molecular clowning." These charlatans used pre-existing Mycoplasma capricolum to "create" their 1st synthetic cell M. mycoides jcvi-syn." What a comical farce of westernized-american-delusional arrogance at play; joe the plumber can do better than that. c. venter's main agenda is to elevate the josef mengele-monsanto-like corporate machines of the g8-nations. YHWH alone is THE CREATOR. Be Blessed, Peace & Shalom,
Now this a break through with technology if they can program to make it into what they want just think what that could with our future space programs :).
Is their any cutting edge research that involves studying poop, B/C if I could make a living studying something as hilarious as poop Id be a happy man
It's funny how atheists here use the very fact that scientist had to intervene in the creative process of creating life as proof that God does not exist. However, it proves the very opposite because chance is not involved. Planning, engineering, and creating life via the mind, will, and purpose is the very essence of Intelligent Design and Creationism.
@zzap999 by saying god did something, how are you achieving anything? your still left asking, how did he do it, which is absurd, considering hes nowhere, yet still able to change something relative to you!
Hi, my name is Remington Draper and I gave my heart to the Lord Jesus Christ in the summer of 2003 because I realized that I had broken God's Commandments and that He was going to judge me by them of judgment day. The same is true for everyone reading this. The good news is God Loves You! and sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins and if your willing to repent (which means to turn away from your sin) and put your trust in the Lord Jesus only to save you, He will and give you eternal life.
@remdrper if god existed, and he wanted me to worship him, he would tell us directly, forgetting the fact some person told you of god, how could you even possibly argue that you know gods will, so lets look at it from a rational point of view, have you ever seen magic, resurrections, and the many beasts written in the bible, NO, 2000 year old nonsense!
@azmanabdula, "if god existed, and he wanted me to worship him, he would tell us directly" Do you realise the belief in God is hardwired directly into your brain? Look up the God gene. Scientists recently discovered an emotion most people will never expirience in their life time which creates the feeling of being in the presence of a divine being. Personally, I don't think atheists go to hell. But they may get exactly what the expect: seizing to exist.
@azmanabdula, "so lets look at it from a rational point of view" Actually, many rationalists are stumped with religion. Most claim to be atheists, but theirs that dang problem with pascal's mugging. "have you ever seen magic, resurrections, and the many beasts written in the bible, NO, 2000 year old nonsense!" No, but, there is a lot of compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts and other "supernatural/paranormal" things that don't fit atheists' perspective.
Because they didn't grow anything. They had to use yeast cells to create the DNA that they later inserted into an empty cell that then later multiplied. In other words, nature still did all the work, not man.
@Leehofooks By "nature" meaning the biological process that God created to operate autonomously. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. - Genesis 1
@Leehofooks Well, there's no scientific evidence of abiogenesis from lightning waking up muddy slime to life. So we're all stuck quoting our beliefs. What we observe today isn't what created the very first living cell or life in general.
@zzap999 No evidence? You mean aside from amino acids found in space? Aside from replicating prebiotic conditions (to the best of our ability and knowledge at the time) to produce monomers (starting with Miller-Urey)? Even if you were right and there was no evidence for abiogenesis, the vast amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth refute any literal interpretation of Genesis.
@Leehofooks Miller-Urey and Amino acids in space? Amino acids have been put into controlled lab conditions(pH, temp, aqueous environment, etc.) and they never once self assembled into DNA. You need the machinery of a cell and it's DNA to produce more cells and DNA. So what made the very first cell?
@zzap999 you dont jump from simple chains of proteins to cells, there should be intermediates, somewhere, cavemen didnt build skyscrapers, things happen slowly, over alot of time, like how long it takes for the half of the mightiest race on earth to come to terms with its own existence, instead of lying about it. bible=ancient lies
@zzap999 Furthermore, should we always fill in holes in our knowledge with "God did it" as the default? And should your personal favorite version of God be the one to use? Imagine where we would be if people hadn't dissented from this form of intellectual laziness and religious fundamentalism. People would still think disease was caused by demonic possession and thunderstorms were caused by angry gods.
@Leehofooks And Albert Einstein didn't believe in the existence of God? Albert Einstein was ignorant and lazy? Ever heard tems like "infinite density", "hyperspace", "aleph noth", "transfinite numbers"? God is in the language of science and mathematics. It's people like you who is ignorant and lazy. And please don't put down the ancients. They were smarter than you think.
@zzap999 Albert Einstein? Really? Pathetic appeal to authority and red herring all rolled in one. But here you go:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein
@Leehofooks He doesn't say he doesn't believe in "God". He says he doesn't believe in a personal one. That one quote doesn't explain all of what Einstein says about God because he uses the word in different ways. He could be merely abstracting God as the "MIND". In that case he would be a pantheist.
@zzap999 I didn't say that Einstein didn't believe in God. I just posted a quote that showed that he didn't believe in a personal God, just as you're saying. Now why would a creationist use someone with, at most, a pantheist/deist belief in God in an argument?
@zzap999 Here's some advice, dude: If you're going to come to one video and leave a bunch of comments in defense of religious fundamentalist beliefs, you shouldn't use the same account to go to another and say "Russian teen porn is the best porn ever created!!!"
Or at least don't make it visible from your profile.
@zzap999 Einstein was a deist look it up, non caring god, couldnt careless if you were rotting in the gutter! and yes, because of his idea of god, he couldnt come to terms with quantum mechanics, he stated "god does not throw dice" in response to Einstein "who are you to say what god thinks"
@azmanabdula God existence is the issue and not his attitude. Einstein calling quantum mechanics dicey is just ignorance on his part. There are rules at the quantum level, i.e "Hund's Rule" which govern the space orbital of electrons. There is the "Uncertainty Principle" which has nothing to do with uncertainty but the limits of observation due to the nature of light. Hey, it's a principle.
@AdonisKingAXC you have to start somewhere, car for example, if you had all the parts for a car, and had the instructions, basic idea, on how to build it you, after time, could achieve it, but if you want to make that same car into a bike, your gonna need to do more research, this is the start my friend Melbourne scientists just found a way to kill cancer AUSTRALIA RULES
I really only see the positive implications. What medicines they can create. THis is pretty neat.... Just dont add Human DNA to it so it grows into some hybrid killing machine.
I love it how everyone has to get in a religious fight about every single thing. I'm not picking sides. All you believers and all you atheists need to shut up and tolerate what others believe. This is why we have so many problems because you all need to feel superior over the other person. Man is never gonna progress when we are all fighting over the most insignificant issues just because we are so determined to prove our own point.
@Lone6gn I can understand your frustration in these religious arguments that go on. I don't like getting into them, but as a Christian and believer in Jesus Christ, I gotta stand up for what I believe in and not submit to what the world believes because it's immoral and wrong. I have to at least try and save as many lives as I can and bring people to Jesus Christ so they don't end up burning in hell because either of their arrogance, or because they're too afraid to be different from the world.
@RoidinRichie Tell that to the "LittleBigKRATOS" (stupid name) faggot. He's a dog, and he will become the devil's bitch when he dies if he doesn't accept Jesus as his Savior....
@TvviztidJoker : Watching your stupid profile I can see you are just another white trash redneck hahaha hahaha.
Go tell your sister or wife "same person" to give you a blow job, or give you a gun so you can shoot yourself in the head and stop wasting my air with your ignorance and your good for nothing dick god.
@Lone6gn The problem is people acting on beliefs. This world would be a much better place without religion. A bad reason to believe such as "faith" is the reason people get killed, not people who value life and knows there is no reward deemed good by an imaginary whatever...
@xIMOG3Nx not the first time to be called mad by a nonbeliever.
swandike 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to hear what the Discovery Institute has to say about this...
enyskept 1 month ago
@that1stupidkid 613 if you cant do what nature does every single second then appreciate that the is a God. after all the bragging about scientific advancement, this little miracle seems impossible? I rest my case
swandike 3 months ago
@swandike yumad?
xIMOG3Nx 3 weeks ago
everything's becoming synthetic!
12TabulaRasa12 3 months ago
what wont they make their own cell membranes and all parts of the cell, but the use natural cells and still call it artificial cell?
How about experimenting abiogenesis? make it real, if you can.
swandike 5 months ago
@swandike We don't have the technology or resources to individual place molecules to make a cell. It would take billions of trials lots of time and energy to replicate the singularity that occurred billions of years ago.
that1stupidkid613 3 months ago
thumbs up if u searched for "wut"
MrWillPill1 5 months ago 2
wut
Dylanorr16063 9 months ago
This only proves intelligences creates life this is not good for evolution because, this is proof life dictates design.Without the starting chemicals designed this is not possible.Looks like this backfired drastically.
clawedification 9 months ago
@clawedification you use the word "prove" strangely. Better hit the textbooks again.
jacobromu 9 months ago
@jacobromu Well i think this is enough for any thinker to deduct that science is observation therefor concluding we observe intelligence making life using another form of intelligence(computers).We have NEVER seen non life self assemble and become life now have we,if we did then we would already know evolution is true.We must conclude that life makes life it is very well documented every time a child is born. To think otherwise is simply nonsense and is indeed false.The evidence speaks clearly.
clawedification 9 months ago
@clawedification computers are not a form of intelligence... they are a tool used by intelligence. synthetic life as described above in no way proves creationism... it is a showcasing of how evolution works. the evidence does speak clearly, but not clear enough for those who are too biased to see it.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
Poor blind one, this is computer aided and guided by an intelligent mind.Watch the video and you will see them say this multiple times.Intelligence programed the computer in the first place and doesn't do anything without input.They started with lintel! Did the first cell have such input?If so what is the argument about? I concur the evidence speaks clearly.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification I never said something intelligent didn't created synthetic life; That's why it's synthetic. (?) We use evolutionary theory too, in non-biological ways, but it doesn't mean intelligence created it in biology. We use rocks and can make rocks, again, doesn't mean intelligence created it. Your logic if flawed. Replicating what our universe has come up with doesn't necessitate a designer of the universe. Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean a god did it.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
Firstly i accept that everything is finite and had a beginning,my understanding is that nothing comes to exist without a cause. Things look designed because they are.Common sense is obviously not that common.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification It's not common sense that things the look designed are not, which is why your common sense fails you. Have you considered things that we use evolutionary theory to design, i.e., the "intelligence" within evolutionary theory being what guides the design process? What about these things that are not designed at all but evolved and appear designed? Not only does it show "creation" from nature but proves evolutionary theory works.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
@clawedification The problem is common sense cannot explain complexities such as emergence, the creation of complexity from simplicity through simple laws (of nature). Your common sense leads you gravely wrong, and you must educate yourself to snap out of it. For example, how does your common sense explain the alpha-beta divide we see in DNA? It's proof of evolution, but if evolution is wrong, and you are right, how does your theory explain it?
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
@matthewdoucette So if it looks like a duck it must be a skunk?
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification What? To understand evolution and science it requires an education, effort, and a lack of religious bias... none of which you seem to have, and it appears each lacking of these things attributes to the lacking of the others. You are lost. And if you are not, then explain the alpha beta divide by your theory. If you are to trump evolution which perfectly explains it then you must explain it with your theory, it's not good enough to just ignorantly choose what you wish to be true.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
@clawedification And here's another challenge: In what way, if evolution were true, and if abiogenesis were true, in what way would us creating a synthetic cell disprove it? With this line of thought you can see just how blind you and your logic are in using this to prove against evolution. Pure absurdity.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
@matthewdoucette This is not related to the topic,I said it matters as we have never seen non life self assemble. My conclusion would still be the same we have not seen life come from non life. As the situation is I have not left the boundaries of observation. No assumption was made about evolution,I dont care if you think you are a monkey! No I wont even speculate for reason of leaving the observable evidence.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification Since when does evolution say we are monkeys? Common ancestors. And as I have said us creating synthetic cells doesn't mean yours are synthetic. How is it proof one way or the other?
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
Again i do not care about ape like ancestors,monkey is a generic term. One more time try to read slower so it has more time to sink in! What was this experiment? Who collected all the data? When you answer these questions and do not assume life self assembles its pretty obvious.Observation is key to discovery not ideas that are never observed. This is what we have, intelligent input,non life becomes living.Show me the observable data on the 3 billion year old common ancestor.Intel=life
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification Life doesn't self assembly in the way your mind thinks of it, so we agree that it doesn't self assemble. It evolves. Google emergence, and study it, and then come back and explain how all the examples of emergence are wrong. You are right that observation is key, and we observe evolution as it would be observed if it were true. You thought evolution was an idea? Darwin discovered it by observation. Research it. The evidence you think doesn't exist, exists.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
I do not accept the evolve word in a macro sense this has never been documented as information being increased in d.n.a. Micro evolution is completely seen and this is what Darwin was observing all the finches still interbreed even though they have different beaks.This does not draw me to the conclusion that a fish becomes a lizard over enough time.(time is your God)Right where we can no longer see is the problem,no one has seen a cow turn into a whale! Observational conclusions are more valid.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification
no one has seen a man in the sky either.
OptimalElement 3 months ago
@clawedification We already know evolution is true, the creation of life is abiogenesis, a completely different process. Evolution is a fact, and the evolution theory that explains that fact is so far one of the most powerful scientific theories we have. We have seen life evolve and we have evidence that was life was more simplistic before, but because it goes against your beliefs you think it is wrong. You have no evidence supporting your view, just your biases.
matthewdoucette 8 months ago
We're doomed. Great!
hydrobot2003 11 months ago
this is awesome
l0rdoflol 11 months ago
Oh for fuck's sake, WHY is there a religious flamewar in the comments on this video?
3Gyro 1 year ago
This is so cool!
FleshMob 1 year ago
But anyway, can't someone at YouTube please ban superstitious/religious morons from making comments at science videos? Or any other videos they don't understand anything of....err...meaning virtually all videos? Get them off YouTube, because their stupidity is so painful to read or listen to, and of course potentially dangerous for kids or the mentally challenged..: (
winterstellar 1 year ago 2
@winterstellar LOL
You mrean you want( you-tube) to kick off the lame brains?
Like those who post then delete what they posted because they know it showed them for the idiots they are?
You know,,, like what YOU just did!
LOL Go back and watch some more of your Star Wars and sci-fi channel .
ekajeht 1 year ago
Comment removed
winterstellar 1 year ago
Nope.
No ads.
Didn't watch.
kinsmed 1 year ago
No, it ISN'T any kind of "reality" whatsoever! ROFL! Leave it to the damned "scientific" (term used mockingly) channels to say such stupid shit! It doesn't matter anymore. I have had my kids get up and leave "science" class at least 4 times now(in 3 years) when they start their bullshit "global warming, evolution, and other shit. You know what? There's nothing anyone can do about it :) They're both still honor students. No wonder this country is so stupid! Others are so far ahead of us....
badtolzstandby 1 year ago
@badtolzstandby The other countries that are so far ahead of us do not dispute global warming and evolution, they're accepted as fact. I wonder why we're so far behind.....
cboch11 1 year ago 2
I find it somewhat depressing how anytime i view one of these amazing discovery video's that don't support blind faith, the comments are bombarded by sad arguments that interrupt intelligent conversation, it's like your brainstorming amazing ideas with some very intelligent people and someone kicks the door down and complains about your clean shoes on the carpet.
VileMisanthropy 1 year ago
@VileMisanthropy Yes im afraid the theists are a persistent desease, difficult to irradicate but soon, very soon.
greeny202a 1 year ago
We are addicted to a finite resource.... talk about possible failure as a species.
VileMisanthropy 1 year ago
ekajeht 1 year ago
@ekajeht Wow, do everyone a favour and stay away from intellegent discussion you have absolutly no understanding of. This video might be more up your alley : watch?v=NBWQCHb95rg
Nmal015 1 year ago
@Nmal015 LOL
Science has created =NOTHING!!!
lol And you are to stupid to understand it.
Go back to my last post and read it again.
I tried to explain it so even an 8 year old would understand.
But it looks like it went right over your head!
Maybe if you get a ,,, second grader to explain it to you,,, you will be able to understand.
ekajeht 1 year ago
@ekajeht Science has created an organisim whose DNA sequence is written by humans on a computer and then assembled manually from its base chemical components. The dna, the essence of the creatures being is entirely manmade. Science has created a new species on a computer that it had complete control over the design of, you claim this is nothing?
Get an education, i shall not reply again. Fools such as yourself should stick to their dayjobs, science is demonstrably beyond your capacity.
Nmal015 1 year ago
@Nmal015 The species to exist it has to be alive.
No life came into being that wasn't already in existence!
Even the scientist involved in this admitted this!
ekajeht 1 year ago
@ekajeht
Not necessarily. Now that we have done this, the next stage would be to build an entire lifeform from scratch, DNA by DNA molecule. Its only a matter of time, very short time, before we succeed. I would say within another decade or so.
TheVoiceOfReason93 1 year ago
@ekajeht
I am not implying anything, but may i ask what is your position concerning science?
TheVoiceOfReason93 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nmal015 1 year ago
@ekajeht Not actually true, as he says here when they removed the genetic material from the nucleus it in effect kills it so when they introduced the artificial genome and it began to divide and replicate they have actually changed something that was dead into something alive. If you mean the material they used was already in existence ofcoarse it was but thats also the case with nature, you can only use materials that are here.
greeny202a 1 year ago
@ekajeht If you mean they did not start the self replicating divergent pattern from scratch ofcoarse they didn't because we dont actually know how that works yet. But the point is the empty cell was not replicating (dead) the DNA they created was not replicating (dead) when they put the two together it began replicating (alive). Another point ofcoarse is that god said to noah that all the life that will ever be will be on the ark. DOH new one here!
greeny202a 1 year ago
@Nmal015 LOL hot potato.
greeny202a 1 year ago
Institute! That is what they used to call a Funny Farm, no more needs to be said on the matter!
kryckeestrooff 1 year ago
Oh look, it's a modern day Frankenstein. This is a bad idea period! One of too many. The next obvious stage is sentience, Wouldn't self awareness lead to survival instinct and as a result our own extermination? Is it ethical who's to judge? Is it practical ? Yes, it has it's applications. Is it thought out with common sense? NO. Will there be the abilty to safeguard this kind of tech?NO.
Don't fuck with mother nature she's a vindictive bitch.
JAG03064 1 year ago
@JAG03064 No we should understand everything about the code of life and develop the technology to completely redesign ourselves. Compared to whats possible we are lower then cavemen and also destined to die out on this puny planet that is already too small for us.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
@DutchNordic You for real?...So you believe in manifest destiny also? The arrogant belief that all life exists for our consumption and we own whatever we conquer. We are parasites on the asshole of this planet and abusing that right to even be here....period.
JAG03064 1 year ago
@JAG03064 Were not just parasites but we are intelligent and self aware, the first species that stopped blindly obeying its genes and instincts and started giving purpose to themselves! Before us, who was there to call nature beautiful? We have to safeguard this intelligence no matter what. That means to become much more powerful and also to spread out into space, because we are much too fragile as a species.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
@DutchNordic You actually believe we have that right? So you are saying we are supreme beings much like a god and are entitled? Isn't that blasphemy and down right arrogant? Well when the little green men get here I'll send them to your door you can be their slave or cattle because that's what you'll be considered as in their eyes if what you say is true.
JAG03064 1 year ago
@JAG03064 We are what we are and there is no universal right or wrong. Theres just us, earth(who doesnt give a damn neither) and the possibility that we wipe ourselves out, or get wiped out by a cosmic disaster.
I dont think its arrogant to see intelligence as a rare and precious thing that needs to be preserved.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
@DutchNordic You take morality out of the equation and morality is what makes up the better part of humanity. The ability to make choices not just for yourself but that effect others not just your own species. Your environment is what sustains you correct? You can't have one without the other can you? Good luck with that.
JAG03064 1 year ago
@JAG03064 I dont think you have to take morality out of the equation. The creation of synthetic life wasn't immoral and next next step doesn't have to be immoral neither. In time his technology can be used to improve our genetic code, which means our health, intellect, genetic diseases, lifespan etc. The possibilities in the future are unimaginable and awesome. We cant just stop that progress because we are so paranoid of some kind of doomsday scenario.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
@DutchNordic Um, isn't that what Hitler was trying to create? You know a so called perfect race?
JAG03064 1 year ago
@JAG03064 We are the only race on this planet that has the power to do it. Everything else is a product of evolution.
Also remember that the only reason we have food on our table is because we were breeding and selecting our crops and farm animals the same way hitler planned to do with humans right? Without these modified products we couldnt even feed half the people in the world.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
Fasinating.
(spock eyebrow)
Gagonic 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheEpicus666 1 year ago
it seems like most of these people commenting don't realize the potential of this technology. what happens when a new being is made up entirely of these artificial cells? what if it begans to apply this to all living cells?
MikeeC1978 1 year ago
@MikeeC1978 The potential is to improve crop and animal yield/size, and make copies of body parts to extend life. It's money, money, money for the biotech industry. So what else is new?
zzap999 1 year ago
interesting article about a jellyfish that has evolved the potential to be immortal. Just search turritopsis nutricula on wiki or google, as it wont allow me to post a link. Another win for science.
british683 1 year ago
Biblewinsciencefail is the quintessential dumbass.
ClamCrunchy 1 year ago
Wow Biblewinscience fail is a dumbass, looks like a typical creasonis though dodging questions, and not supplying evidence backed by data. ALso saying evolution must be wrong becuase it cant prove something like mortality. EVOLUTION DOES NOT TRY TO EXPLAIN MORTALITY fuck tard
british683 1 year ago 18
@british683
Raaaaamen.
drche420 1 year ago
@british683 evolutionary theory has a problem then, if it can not explain mortality. one of many. there is no dat or evidence to convince a fool.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail OK Listen evolution does not try to explain mortality. Mortality has many factors influencing, I'm guessing you don't know what oncogenic genes are, or what Apoptosis is? They explain a lot of why we die.
british683 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail
You dumbasss. Ain't it obvious? Death is an evolutionary necessity. Life forms came with it: If the older generation don't die off, how could the new generation they pass their genes on be able survive and compete for resources? Have you even to university?
TheVoiceOfReason93 1 year ago
@TheVoiceOfReason93 bwahahahaaaaaaaa we pass on our genes/dna to our offspring at the point of conception/when we give birth to them you amateur, they do not spontaneously transmit at the point of our death to our offspring!
bwaahaahaaahaaaaahaaaaa
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail
You misunderstood me - what i mean is death is a necessity. Once the animals had finished procreating, their purpose is fulfilled. If they are still around when the next generation is born they would get in their way, use up the resources and such. That's why there's aging, predation and death and whatnot - For the next generation to prosper, the older generation must die. Does that explain it to you?
TheVoiceOfReason93 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail
God can be God, let science do its thing, and religion/creationism could go fuck itself.
TheVoiceOfReason93 1 year ago
@british683 Evolution does explain mortality. If the old do not die, their bad genes remain in the gene pool. Only the "good" in the gene pool should propagate
harshhpareek 1 year ago
@harshhpareek Tru but that is a rather simplistic approach, there are more factors than that. A dominant male will have good DNA almost till the day. Sure there will be increased errors with DNA replication with advanced age but considering it is a relativity small amount of DNA that codes for essential proteins and info compared to Junk DNA. Also in the wild it is rare for animals to die from old age. The vast majority will die from predation, sickness or injury long before old age.
british683 1 year ago
Religion is dead.
ClamCrunchy 1 year ago
ok, could somebody explain to me if what is said in the video has already been done? i mean have they already created a sequence of dna that works to replicate and synthetize in a living organism resulting in this living organism to reproduce? y saw half of this show on tv, but as far as i could stay they havent completed the task. they had only synthetized the dna...
loopreeze 1 year ago
@loopreeze
Yes, that guy in this video led the team. The 21st of last month the team created the synthesized the first artificial cell with dna programmed from a computer. The cell lived, reproduced, and produced lipids, qualifying as the first man made lifeform. Btw, you have the internet, why can't you just look this up?
drche420 1 year ago
@drche420 thanks! :) why? i have you.
loopreeze 1 year ago
@loopreeze
Baaaahumbug.
Still, if you're curious or want to know about this in more detail, a quick google or youtube search will return with copious information.
drche420 1 year ago
Look up Darwinbots if you want to expiriment with evolution. Theres also a simpler one called Aviola universe, but google doesn't recognize it because its on a free host so you need to start by googling "alife links".
Houshalter 1 year ago
Take that Christians.
Us humans played god. and nothing happened.
Heres a good quote
"On the first day, Man created god"
Because god is a creation of man.
Ktwonnn 1 year ago
yet more false claims from a smoke and mirrors "science" illusion showman.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail if science fails then how are you using a computer
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula science works when it givesus beneficial technologies. science fails as a religion, it can not provide answers to the big questions.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail science can, and i dont know why you think you would have them! science is not a religion, WHAT THE BEJESUS i dont pray to science, i dont sacrifice my nightly meal on the the alter of evolution! how can you possible say its a belief system when clearly is uses reality's principles to obtain an easier life??
ANSWER ME THIS, WHAT DID RELIGION INVENT
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula If you do not believe in God, then you simply replace Him in your life with false gods of your own choosing. (darwin, venter, dawkins, anything) as an atheist you only have to survive in this life and all you have to look forward to is death. science is powerless to solve the problem of mortality. why do we have apoptosis? why do atheists have any morals? they all have their own morals which are simply poor copies of God's moral standards.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail any historian and theologian will tell you the morals your god apparently gave you, existed long before the bible, theodolus, Confucius both wrote long books about morality, the bible burrowed from those! dawkins,darwin etc are not gods! stop looking for one. (if no one has spoken to god and no one has any creditable evidence of his existence, where do you get off tell people god made the morals standards and by the way which standards!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail besides dont try and reason with me ANSWER ME
What has religion invented
science=not a religion
morals are always fluid
why couldnt god make us immortal
how does god exist
we are in the age of enlightenment stop dragging us back into the dark ages of scientific repression and moral standards!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula the 10 commandments predate all the names u listed. God did make Adam and Eve immortal, as long as they did not sin. but they sinned, so now we are all mortal and die. (why did we "evolve" into mortal creatures?) this explains mortality. evolutionary theory has no explanation whatsoever for mortality.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail failed response , evolve into a mortal creature? you have lost it, adam and eve did not exist! (besides you haven't answered many of my questions!) mortality, nothing exists forever, NOTHING, GET OVER IT, things decay, even heavier more unstable atoms decay, radioactive dating, but you wouldn't agree with that.evolution isnt the study of immortality. its how species changes over time, you need death for a species to evolve, that explains it! what has religion invented!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula read parsons et al, nature. 1998 "calibrating the mitochondrial clock" showed that all humans are descended from ancesters no older than 6500yrs. so dna proves adam and eve did exists. they let the cat out of the bag.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail LOL. you really need to read more than an article
BFreeThinker 1 year ago
@BFreeThinker I do. how about darwins black box by michael behe. in the school i work in, i make the science teachers job really difficult.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
oh lordy!
plz do all the kids a favor and resign.
kk? thx!
afielsch 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail yes maybe 2 significant people 6000 years ago gave birth to a child with a mutated gene,being a mix of the parents almost all genes are different .besides this one gene this person had 6000 years ago must have been useful,therefore he got more women,THERE WERE PEOPLE BEFORE THEM, and of those children the strongest smartest survived over other children, its always happening, just not in society, evolution is harsh, we dont want that on us, but its true. RELIGION INVENTED ??
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail maybe your inbred, to believe humans came from 2 humans maybe 1 CELL much easier to make
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail
Evolution does not attempt to explain mortality. Moreover, biological engineers know exactly why we have mortality. Our cells are driven by chromosomes (the material that contains the necessary information to create and drive the cell) and chromosomes have telomeres that protect and cap each end, with each division of a cell, the telomere gets shorter. When it is completely degraded, the cell becomes cancerous and dies. Mortality is a quality of all life.
drche420 1 year ago
@drche420 well you beat me on that response, but that wont mean anything to him, trust me
azmanabdula 1 year ago
Comment removed
drche420 1 year ago
@azmanabdula
I hate that faith has the quality of being able to completely disregard all evidence and reason.
drche420 1 year ago 24
@drche420 agreed
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@drche420 What evidence and what reason? Do you mean the evidence devised by way of the reasoning of a chimp?
kryckeestrooff 1 year ago
@drche420 Also since the main goal of life is to pass on our DNA, i would make sense that the loner an animal lives the higher chance it will have of having offspring. (I realize that women lose fertility earlier than men, and that in humans disorders such as autism increased with age, but that is due to errors on the womans side.) But I agree it may be a factor that helps keep population in check, or evolution may be and has been selecting individuals who's cell machinery does not degrade
british683 1 year ago
@drche420 at a young age or activate oncogenes, and evolution may be selecting for individuals who have the ability to live long. I know there is a gene among centurions that is unique to them, i agree evolution does have a factor in mortality, just that your idea was a little simplistic
british683 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail besides none of that explains anything, we havent witnessed mortal life, how can you say it ever existed. FUCK LIVING FOREVER after the first 50 billion years id want to die, BUT YOU CANT, YOUR FUCKED
WHAT IMMORTALITY WHERE your brainwashed really bad TOXIC!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
oh fuck im going to get killed by a synthetic disease by the islamic extremists
teedonster 1 year ago
They aren't going to be able to create an entire cell out of raw materials in our lifetime, or our in the next generations lifetime. Proving that it could be done is still a long way away, but they are getting closer. We don't need to play god if there isn't one required to create life.
sowhatisavailible 1 year ago
@all Anti-creationist geneticist Steve Jones is another critic, as quoted in a Guardian profile of Venter:
Jones is sceptical about the hyperbole of breathless headlines. “The idea that this is “playing God” is just daft. What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC — and then saying you have created a computer. It’s not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made about it.”
grfield1 1 year ago
I once had to grab my grandfathers shotgun when I found someone in my house. I knew it was not functional because of the firing pin. I yelled all I could at him at gun point and shouted "Don't Move a muscle!" When he dropped to his knees to start praying, I freaked out and pulled the trigger by accident. He believes it was god that saved him. I got lucky, not him. If he was a real criminal, I might be dead. Go to college and take some biology and chemistry classes. Somethings are NOT divine.
sowhatisavailible 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
c. venter, h. smith, c. hutchinson et al. are the 21st century stooges of "molecular clowning." These charlatans used pre-existing Mycoplasma capricolum to "create" their 1st synthetic cell M. mycoides jcvi-syn." What a comical farce of westernized-american-delusional arrogance at play; joe the plumber can do better than that. c. venter's main agenda is to elevate the josef mengele-monsanto-like corporate machines of the g8-nations. YHWH alone is THE CREATOR. Blessing Peace & Shalom,
ednoisin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
c. venter, h. smith, c. hutchinson et al. are the 21st century stooges of "molecular clowning." These charlatans used pre-existing Mycoplasma capricolum to "create" their 1st synthetic cell M. mycoides jcvi-syn." What a comical farce of westernized-american-delusional arrogance at play; joe the plumber can do better than that. c. venter's main agenda is to elevate the josef mengele-monsanto-like corporate machines of the g8-nations. YHWH alone is THE CREATOR. Blessing Peace & Shalom,
ednoisin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
c. venter, h. smith, c. hutchinson et al. are the 21st century stooges of "molecular clowning." These charlatans used pre-existing Mycoplasma capricolum to "create" their 1st synthetic cell M. mycoides jcvi-syn." What a comical farce of westernized-american-delusional arrogance at play; joe the plumber can do better than that. c. venter's main agenda is to elevate the josef mengele-monsanto-like corporate machines of the g8-nations. YHWH alone is THE CREATOR. Be Blessed, Peace & Shalom,
ednoisin 1 year ago
Now this a break through with technology if they can program to make it into what they want just think what that could with our future space programs :).
sedgie09 1 year ago
This really is great news. The implications are huge. The most puzzling thing for me is why anyone would vote the video down...
catalyst8 1 year ago
Is their any cutting edge research that involves studying poop, B/C if I could make a living studying something as hilarious as poop Id be a happy man
poopaholictar 1 year ago
from this point on we have to be very careful.
deathgun666 1 year ago
It's funny how atheists here use the very fact that scientist had to intervene in the creative process of creating life as proof that God does not exist. However, it proves the very opposite because chance is not involved. Planning, engineering, and creating life via the mind, will, and purpose is the very essence of Intelligent Design and Creationism.
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 by saying god did something, how are you achieving anything? your still left asking, how did he do it, which is absurd, considering hes nowhere, yet still able to change something relative to you!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
Hi, my name is Remington Draper and I gave my heart to the Lord Jesus Christ in the summer of 2003 because I realized that I had broken God's Commandments and that He was going to judge me by them of judgment day. The same is true for everyone reading this. The good news is God Loves You! and sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins and if your willing to repent (which means to turn away from your sin) and put your trust in the Lord Jesus only to save you, He will and give you eternal life.
remdrper 1 year ago
@remdrper if god existed, and he wanted me to worship him, he would tell us directly, forgetting the fact some person told you of god, how could you even possibly argue that you know gods will, so lets look at it from a rational point of view, have you ever seen magic, resurrections, and the many beasts written in the bible, NO, 2000 year old nonsense!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula, "if god existed, and he wanted me to worship him, he would tell us directly" Do you realise the belief in God is hardwired directly into your brain? Look up the God gene. Scientists recently discovered an emotion most people will never expirience in their life time which creates the feeling of being in the presence of a divine being. Personally, I don't think atheists go to hell. But they may get exactly what the expect: seizing to exist.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@azmanabdula, "so lets look at it from a rational point of view" Actually, many rationalists are stumped with religion. Most claim to be atheists, but theirs that dang problem with pascal's mugging. "have you ever seen magic, resurrections, and the many beasts written in the bible, NO, 2000 year old nonsense!" No, but, there is a lot of compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts and other "supernatural/paranormal" things that don't fit atheists' perspective.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter NO THERE IS NOT references mate! i wonna see them
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula, Um, references to what?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter supernatural paranormal, actual creditable evidence. i wonna see some references
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula, evp, dozens of pictures, studies on early reactions, etc.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter all the while i was sitting here thinking you had proof LMAO
azmanabdula 1 year ago
what is so different from genetic engineering
weaternpi 1 year ago
they've totally replaced the american worker. now they have a chance to replace ALL workers. NO, NO, NO, can't happen here.
johndessoye 1 year ago
Why is it that now scientists seem to be able to grow Synthetic life yet cannot seem to figure out how to regrow hair? justaskin"
AdonisKingAXC 1 year ago
Because they didn't grow anything. They had to use yeast cells to create the DNA that they later inserted into an empty cell that then later multiplied. In other words, nature still did all the work, not man.
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 "nature still did the work"
That's right... nature. Can you name an experiment where God did the work?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks By "nature" meaning the biological process that God created to operate autonomously. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. - Genesis 1
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 Of course -- a Bible excerpt. So no scientific evidence?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks Well, there's no scientific evidence of abiogenesis from lightning waking up muddy slime to life. So we're all stuck quoting our beliefs. What we observe today isn't what created the very first living cell or life in general.
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 No evidence? You mean aside from amino acids found in space? Aside from replicating prebiotic conditions (to the best of our ability and knowledge at the time) to produce monomers (starting with Miller-Urey)? Even if you were right and there was no evidence for abiogenesis, the vast amounts of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth refute any literal interpretation of Genesis.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks Miller-Urey and Amino acids in space? Amino acids have been put into controlled lab conditions(pH, temp, aqueous environment, etc.) and they never once self assembled into DNA. You need the machinery of a cell and it's DNA to produce more cells and DNA. So what made the very first cell?
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 you dont jump from simple chains of proteins to cells, there should be intermediates, somewhere, cavemen didnt build skyscrapers, things happen slowly, over alot of time, like how long it takes for the half of the mightiest race on earth to come to terms with its own existence, instead of lying about it. bible=ancient lies
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@zzap999 Furthermore, should we always fill in holes in our knowledge with "God did it" as the default? And should your personal favorite version of God be the one to use? Imagine where we would be if people hadn't dissented from this form of intellectual laziness and religious fundamentalism. People would still think disease was caused by demonic possession and thunderstorms were caused by angry gods.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks And Albert Einstein didn't believe in the existence of God? Albert Einstein was ignorant and lazy? Ever heard tems like "infinite density", "hyperspace", "aleph noth", "transfinite numbers"? God is in the language of science and mathematics. It's people like you who is ignorant and lazy. And please don't put down the ancients. They were smarter than you think.
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 Albert Einstein? Really? Pathetic appeal to authority and red herring all rolled in one. But here you go:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks He doesn't say he doesn't believe in "God". He says he doesn't believe in a personal one. That one quote doesn't explain all of what Einstein says about God because he uses the word in different ways. He could be merely abstracting God as the "MIND". In that case he would be a pantheist.
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 I didn't say that Einstein didn't believe in God. I just posted a quote that showed that he didn't believe in a personal God, just as you're saying. Now why would a creationist use someone with, at most, a pantheist/deist belief in God in an argument?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks Well, even a pantheist/deist argument still appeals to God as the first cause.
zzap999 1 year ago
@zzap999 Sure does, but it's not evidence.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zzap999 Here's some advice, dude: If you're going to come to one video and leave a bunch of comments in defense of religious fundamentalist beliefs, you shouldn't use the same account to go to another and say "Russian teen porn is the best porn ever created!!!"
Or at least don't make it visible from your profile.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@zzap999 "It's people like you who is ignorant and lazy." Hahaha! Read that again, please.
"And please don't put down the ancients." When did I do that?
Way to either a) miss the point or b) purposely ignore it.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@zzap999 Einstein was a deist look it up, non caring god, couldnt careless if you were rotting in the gutter! and yes, because of his idea of god, he couldnt come to terms with quantum mechanics, he stated "god does not throw dice" in response to Einstein "who are you to say what god thinks"
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula God existence is the issue and not his attitude. Einstein calling quantum mechanics dicey is just ignorance on his part. There are rules at the quantum level, i.e "Hund's Rule" which govern the space orbital of electrons. There is the "Uncertainty Principle" which has nothing to do with uncertainty but the limits of observation due to the nature of light. Hey, it's a principle.
zzap999 1 year ago
@AdonisKingAXC you have to start somewhere, car for example, if you had all the parts for a car, and had the instructions, basic idea, on how to build it you, after time, could achieve it, but if you want to make that same car into a bike, your gonna need to do more research, this is the start my friend Melbourne scientists just found a way to kill cancer AUSTRALIA RULES
azmanabdula 1 year ago
haha they are still using a bacteria to insert that chromosome LOLZ
yadishansar 1 year ago
I really only see the positive implications. What medicines they can create. THis is pretty neat.... Just dont add Human DNA to it so it grows into some hybrid killing machine.
neoarchangemon 1 year ago
NO GOD
takadi 1 year ago
I love it how everyone has to get in a religious fight about every single thing. I'm not picking sides. All you believers and all you atheists need to shut up and tolerate what others believe. This is why we have so many problems because you all need to feel superior over the other person. Man is never gonna progress when we are all fighting over the most insignificant issues just because we are so determined to prove our own point.
Lone6gn 1 year ago 22
@Lone6gn I can understand your frustration in these religious arguments that go on. I don't like getting into them, but as a Christian and believer in Jesus Christ, I gotta stand up for what I believe in and not submit to what the world believes because it's immoral and wrong. I have to at least try and save as many lives as I can and bring people to Jesus Christ so they don't end up burning in hell because either of their arrogance, or because they're too afraid to be different from the world.
TvviztidJoker 1 year ago
@Lone6gn telling an atheist to be tolerant is like telling a dog not to lick its ass, they won't listen
RoidinRichie 1 year ago
@RoidinRichie Tell that to the "LittleBigKRATOS" (stupid name) faggot. He's a dog, and he will become the devil's bitch when he dies if he doesn't accept Jesus as his Savior....
TvviztidJoker 1 year ago
@TvviztidJoker : Watching your stupid profile I can see you are just another white trash redneck hahaha hahaha.
Go tell your sister or wife "same person" to give you a blow job, or give you a gun so you can shoot yourself in the head and stop wasting my air with your ignorance and your good for nothing dick god.
LittleBigKRATOS 1 year ago
@Lone6gn The problem is people acting on beliefs. This world would be a much better place without religion. A bad reason to believe such as "faith" is the reason people get killed, not people who value life and knows there is no reward deemed good by an imaginary whatever...
JimbobOMG 1 year ago