I had the monster making kit as a kid.This is different by alot.For one thing the monsters that can be made with this stuff won't be fun.It might be used for good but the odds say no.Most likely the military will make gray goo and keep it in a jar just in case.It will sit there like nuclear weapons creating stress we don't need.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
humans have been praying for our entire history of like 200.000+ years, and we've been only doing real science for like 100 more or less. I hope that clear out any doubts about the (non) efectiveness of prayer.
I was just wondering.."Do human species have complete and updated "human database of everything that human species has ever "invented"?? I mean every aspect of human species existence? Why, well in case we discoverd a earth like planet..and by then had technology to travel there...we wouldnt want to "reinvent the wheel " in everything to get the human species get going on that planet-do we ??
Beware of glib for-profit techno-surges. Venter is a lot smarter than Petraeus but he could still fall on his face in the minds of his investors. Then what? Will profit-motive desperation lead to lose DNA nukes?
@deteodoru He would be the ones controlling investors because they would need his intelligence, and team of scientists, not the other way around. Try again.
Someone please tell me how is it science tells us "intelligent design is not science" while simultaneously practicing the very thing they say is "not science"?
@toobsucker Because 'intelligent design' refers specifically to the belief that god created everything and as a result everything has been designed by an 'intelligence'. This is completely different to scientists using their intelligence to design something. 'Intelligent design is not science' refers to the fact that it's not scientific to believe that god designed everything as there's no evidence past a persons faith or opinion. It is scientific to use evidence, research and logic to design.
@arb303 "Because 'intelligent design' refers specifically to the belief that god created everything'
Incorrect. Creationism is the term used for intelligent design proponents who also believe the designer is God. There are atheists (Raelians) who believe in intelligent design, however their designer is a alien that they don't have to answer to on judgment day.
Just the definition of the words should be sufficient explanation. Intelligent design is anything that was designed by an intelligence
@toobsucker What goes on in laboratories like what Craig venter and jack szostak do, Is controlled experiments in controlled conditions and would never occur on there primordial earth!!
They also dont create anything!!!!, they borrow and copy pre existing INFORMATION to get there experiments Going!!!! rearranging DNA and genomes, is not creating life!
@5tonyvvvv let's just rearrange this, from what you say this is equivlent to this
An artist walks into his friends studio, he borrows his friends paints and takes a nice new canvas, with this canvas he makes a great painting.
His friend walks back and takes the painting from him and says thanks for the work. Since it wasn't the artists paints it can't be his painting then can it?
We can't make paint (DNA) and we can't make something thats isn't from DNA as that's what we know of.
@D1aau But I don't know if you have noticed a tiny tiny correaltion between the advancement of science and the lenghtening of human lifespan in the last 100 years. Just tiny tiny. No?
@D1aau Well, humans have been praying for our entire history of like 200.000+ years, and we've been only doing real science for like 100 more or less. I hope that clear out any doubts about the (non) efectiveness of prayer.
@LesPaul2006 People have been doing real science for thousands of years. Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Madame Curie, the steam engine, all more than a hundred years ago.
Real science also says you should test your hypothesis. Do a long-term study of the happiness and health of people who pray and people who don't, before you talk about prayer's effectiveness.
All of this is aside from the point. Science doesn't save lives yet, and neither does religion. Everyone dies.
"Science doesn't save lives yet, and neither does religion. Everyone dies."
If you want to play semantic BS, then fine: Science doubles how long you can live. Religion indoctrinates people to steal their money and fuck your children. Done.
@D1aau "Science doesn't save lives yet, and neither does religion. Everyone dies." You are fucking dumb for saying this, Jesus cock sucker.
Foods you eat everyday? How did you grow up? Medicine you take when you are sick like a bitch? Your daily life? Internet? The computer you are using to type this line of shit?
@binbashLinuxAhole Think again? What am I supposed to be thinking about?
In case you're unaware you didn't really make a point... You made an ad hominem attack, called Jesus a cock sucker then proceeded to list a series of, what I assume to be, rhetorical questions.
If you'd like to rephrase your incoherence into a comprehensible argument I'd be more than happy to refute your claims, but until then I'm afraid all I can do is sit here and laugh at the your nonsensical babble.
@LesPaul2006 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, plagiarize a cell's Design!! Scientists COPY a limited set of genetic sequences with synthesizing machines and Templates!! They dont create anything!!!!
Its all Man made Synthetic biology!!!! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS!!
@buffboynick "We" means mankind, it's imagination, creativity, intelligence and independence from any mystical weird powers. Advancement of technology by creativity and brainpower alone (and money, of course)
Why can't we let nature take it's own natural course.. Humans always have to stick their noses where they are not supposed to... changing genes ? or creating new organisms..science has it's limit to..few "genius people" may do some experiments and what if something goes wrong ?..and in the end people like me and you will have to endure the consequences.. Nature was doing just fine before humans walked on earth..
@EuropeanGuy87 nature made humans, and because nature is random, there is a bigger chance that there is a natural "thing that goes wrong" than a human "mistake that goes wrong".
@EuropeanGuy87 I find it quite odd how everyone who complains about nature taking its own course fail to realize that nature is not something pretty, there's no such thing like Gaia watching over the way the world is running.
Just bear in mind we'd be naked, cold and mostly dead if it was not for medical and technological advancements. Ironic how its because of the comforts you gain from this that you actually have time to think about such advancements and draw up a mild disapproval of them.
Nature developed slowly and balances itself. What concerns me about changing or speeding up evolution is that one aspect of life may end up moving much faster than the rest of life, that we can't account for the majority of consequences and shouldn't be making physical strides while the concept is still in its infancy.
@whosthisguythinkheis Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, plagiarize a cell's Design!! Scientists COPY a limited set of genetic sequences with synthesizing machines and Templates!! They dont create anything!!!!
Its all Man made Synthetic biology!!!! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS!!
@EuropeanGuy87 Lest you forget we are the product of nature, so our actions are also, transitively, the product of nature. Nature was doing just fine before humans and will continue doing just fine with them, and well after their extinction. We are a small and tiny blemish on Nature's giant ass, a single grain of sand resting on the beaches of the cosmic ocean. Don't over-exaggerate our importance, because i assure you we are immensely less significant than you make us out to be.
@D1aau Honestly I don't know what to say, it's so hard to judge when we don't even know why we exist on this planet. We reproduce, we adapt, we eat, enjoy life and die.. but there has to be other reasons to life.. something that goes much deeper.. everything exists for a reason.. Maybe nature wants to rich a certain goal ... we keep evolving and adapting but to what point ?maybe not only for survival.. but for rather something different !..
"but there has to be other reasons to life.. something that goes much deeper... everything exists for a reason"
These are assertions with absolutely no logic behind them. You have nothing to back up your claims that there must be something more. That's nothing but wishful thinking on your part. Grow a pair and realize the only purpose your life has, you have to decide for yourself.
@EuropeanGuy87 If it's so hard to judge then don't. Whether you disagree or not there does not have to be a greater meaning for anything. Ever.
We exist as the product of millions of years of evolution that began with primeval chemical evolution that produced amino acids that formed organisms which, since that point, have undergone natural selection leaving us with the present assortment of life. Outside of the direct consequences of our existence we have no observable meaning or purpose.
Although this TED talk was candy to the brain, it does worry me how unsatisfying Venter's answer to security was, but more importantly is that even scientists make mistakes, and I fear the things they pump out of their life machines may be rushed, which could easily create some virus that can wipe out people (and other life) in mass in new horrifying ways. It just doesn't sound like he's worried enough about being careful with what they're doing...
This is the kind of shit that gets me pumped. It's a beautiful thing to be young, to learn, and to live in the future that so many geniuses from the previous generation have been working so hard to create for us. Watch all of the TED talks and don't just learn but act. The torch is being passed on to us and we have to step up. Peace.
that guy is good but he s talking about speeding up evolution and doesnt that support the destructive lifestyle and expectations of some ? expect contamination disasters :(
@mrdotbryce As sentient beings (sentience itself a product of evolution) we have been directing and modifying evolution for thousands of years. It can be expected (and has been demonstrated) that our ability to do this will improve. Whether this will prove detrimental, or is just another part of 'our' natural journey of evolution remains to be seen.
@hisnameisfrankie no we havent been directing evolution for thousands years. For thousands of years we have been unaware of our influence on evolution, and its only for the last century that we have started to teach and study it. with the recent awareness we gained in genetic diversity, we have realized that we have been modifying evolution amongst which positive occurences have been very rare. Our ability to improve this influence is rather obvious and comes with human progress.
@mrdotbryce Our ability to improve this influence is rather obvious and comes with human progress. It does not come with any security or guarantee at all. It does not rely on enthusiastic confidence nor does it rely on carefree pride. It relies not only on the wisdom to assess risks but more importantly on the awareness of the limited nature of our knowledge. we are just entering the age of genetics and yet we are still victims of the chemical age's hazards. we havent yet assumed responsability
@mrdotbryce we havent yet assumed responsability for the power chemistry gave us and some are already planning to spread use of genetics. as we move deeper in the core of our ecosystem and life itself, and start meddling with parts of the system without understanding its underlyings, responsibility becomes much higher and the people with means to use this power are exactly the ones who cannot assume that kind of responsability. research is crucial as it fuels progress
@hisnameisfrankie research is crucial as it fuels progress which is the goal of human life, but this particular speech hints towards pride and disregard. your comment is a striking exemple of it.
@mrdotbryce Agriculture is directed evolution through artificial selection, and I do believe agriculture is thousands of years old. What has improved is our ability to work directly with genes, rather wait for generations.
@hisnameisfrankie agriculture in not directed evolution. agriculture sometimes makes use of artificial selection. selective breeding is a more appropriate term. selective breeding is an assisted form of reproduction, following nature's rules and thus providing somewhat of a safeguard. one should not make such shortcut in comparing reproduction with gene modification. yet a few examples come to mind
@mrdotbryce yet a few examples come to mind in regards to how selective breeding and its subjective assessment of human influence can lead to debilitating and uncontrollable consequences such as invasive species, genetic defects particularly in dogs or the rise of food allergies like gluten intolerance. as i stated we are only starting to discover the extent of our influence on the genetic level
@mrdotbryce as i stated we are only starting to discover the extent of our influence on the genetic level and those discoveries should not be taken as a prideful token of our supposed ability to direct and control evolution, but rather as a humble revelation of how we came to overlook fundamentals, such as the plural nature of natural selection or the prevalence of genetic diversity over short term conveniences.
@mrdotbryce. Unfortunately you are a little off the mark. Selective breeding is one of the mechanisms of directed evolution, however, I refer to the broader phenomena of artificial selection, where the selection pressures (or absence thereof) are applied through artificial means. By ;planting,' for instance, we interfere with the probability of different allele sets reproducing. By weeding we remove competing species. My original argument still stands. I hope this helps.
@hisnameisfrankie well, no you re the one being off the mark. whichever way you define what is happening at the gene level doesnt invalidate my first post to which you were opposing your argument. first sentence of your originial argument: "we have been directing" the verb being polysemantic. last sentence : you would rather go ahead and be faced with the consequences rather than assess the risks on a logical and philosophical level. so "my original argument still stands".
@mrdotbryce so "my original argument still stands". genetic science is at the edge of our knowledge and we re messing with something that calls for more responsability than even medical and health experiments. when someone talks about speeding up evolution and oil in the same speech, you d have to be a complete idiot for not getting your rationnality senses fire up.
@mrdotbryce I like any thinking person do have my reservations about this. The ethics and the potential for disastrous results are obvious if left unchecked. Humans have an innate sense of curiosity, that I have to assume was given to us by "God" for a reason. I have to think that this knowledge would be taken if we aren't equipped to handle it. You can't raise a child to be an adult by hobbling them and keeping them ignorant of the fact's and not allowing them to learn by trial and error.
@Kymimom i do not see on which grounds you are making the assumption that curiosity is something to be given or taken, and it does sound like irrationnal religious thinking. i find the metaphore you wrote to be too simplistic to be relevant, apart from the fact that it supports your seemingly strong position on the benefits of trial and error. remember that a trial has to be conducted in a controlled environment. neither nature nor our planet are controlled environment.
building nuclear power plants or cultivating genetically modified organisms on open fields are dreadful examples of terrible reasoning from influential people. if i was to come on your level, i could say that you dont throw a child in front of a car to teach him about street crossing.note that such metaphores never serve their purpose and get people drifting in pointless arguments.
you did say disastrous results are obvious if left unchecked. i would say those words are very interesting if you look at the recent events in japan. surely they have run every check they could possibly make, but such checking is mainly an illusion of control, and didnt teach us anything important we didnt already know. the key here is ensuring a controlled environment, being aware of the unforeseeable and the risks.
@hisnameisfrankie The Banana and modern wheat is modern wheat is man-made. Apples are the result of cloning. WE've been doing this for thousands of years. It's just more advanced now.
@hisnameisfrankie The Banana and modern wheat is modern wheat is man-made. Apples are the result of cloning. We've been doing this for thousands of years. It's just more advanced now.
@binbashLinuxAhole A modified Cell from VIRUSES. It eats Metals, it eats Flesh. Watch it mutating.. oh wait you can't anymore, they pulled the live feed 7 days ago! See "what is this in the Gulf of mexico" video for a good look.
@VibrationsfromMirror Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, plagiarize a cell's Design!! Scientists COPY a limited set of genetic sequences with synthesizing machines and Templates!! They dont create anything!!!!
Its all Man made Synthetic biology!!!! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS!!
I love the idea of designing chromosomes from scratch, but I worry, what if we make something that is better adapted to reproduction than existing life. And what about mutations of things that you design?
I think the chance of this leading to an unknown danger is dwarft by the danger of some religious group killing millions with nuclear or even destroying the world by ignoring dangers like global warming. At lest most scientist realizes how important life is in the here and now. When you think your loved ones or a bunch of virgins are waiting for you when you die, you don't care what you do in the here and now.
he sure does dodge alot of questions. when asking if they're playing god he throws it over smoothly... same for some previous questions like the one about this whole project leading into weapons
@emandemz1 He's not dodging the questions. He dismisses the god q's because it's a waste of time to debate the idea of god when you work with progress, and like he said, with every scientific discovery, you can use it for good or bad. His team is taking every precaution to make sure it doesn't happen
You know im taking a bio tech class and people say things that they dont even understand. i hate comments like this. This is a scientific revolution. These species that they created have only enough DNA to reproduce and do their functions. They can only operate under certain circumstances which is the lab. Furthermore, the DNA is so miniscule that if DNA replication did happen many of them would be mutated in no time and die from a lacking protein or certain function.
This guy is a Nazi Eugenicist. There are methods to prevent destruction, there is technology today that eliminates oil/coal, we don't need to destroy nature through computers to get ORDER. This is very alarming, scientists seem to have taken the wrong turn after project Paperclip. The RODIN COIL is the answer, vortex fractal math. Nature is far more complex than these Nazi Eugenics Gates Freaks might think. IDIOTS (vaccines, flu, bullshit)
Does anybody realize how dangerous this could be. Foreign species can destroy ecosystems. Now what if they make some of these bacteria that are factories for whatever chemical they like, they start growing all over and through off the global ecosystem. Foreign species can be very aggressive.
@Yagmilner people are stupider than maggots, so how can they expect what's coming? They are plain idiots to recognize that artificial life is going to bring a total collapse in nature. Or at least most living creatures, until nature restores balance.. Ignorant, arrogant "scientists", taught in universities by Ex Nazi professors, this is what you get. Eugenics 101.
@Yagmilner Your not knowing if they are being cautious enough is the equivilant to my not knowing if they are being overly cautious. Unless you know the scientists, been to the lab, and looked at their msds's, containment procedures, and a multitude of other safeties, you can only speculate going on no information, which is pointless
@3:05 "synthesizing DNA is very difficult" yet science will tell you it evolved in a primordial ocean millions of years ago, and turned into the first living organism. The scientific community is beginning to look more like comedy central.
Take the time an actually listen to what this guy is saying, look at how much work it took intelligent human beings to create a manipulated life form, and science says at one time it did it all by itself millions of years ago.
@RespectMyHate It took them a few years to create what evolution took millions of years to do. You cant compare what they did to evolution. Synthesizing DNA at the rate that they did was a great challenge. Thats what he meant by "synthesizing DNA is very difficult". Its pretty easy to synthesize DNA if you dont care how fast it is made. It is very dangerous to criticize scientists that dedicate their WHOLE lives to research, if you dnt take 5 seconds to understand what they r really saying.
@s206031009 Somewhere along your life your mental faculties have been retarded. Now I don't mean the slow, clumsy retard type, but just you have allowed your mind to believe in science fiction as if it was reality. Evolution never happened. I study biology and I know that every cell in your body is loaded with moleculer machinery, all machines are created by an intelligence.
The Theory of evolution is a Lie, it never happened. There is no evidence to support it. JUST GIVE IT UP.
@RespectMyHate The theory of evolution couldnt have happened because its a theory and theories do not happen. Evolution happened and there is nothing you can to to disprove it. You can disprove the theory of evolution by means of natural selection however you would still need a model to describe evolutionary change. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact
@RespectMyHate There is no such thing as macro or micro evolution, there is just evolution. The entire fossil record is proof for evolution. Genetics confirm evolutionary lineages. But you cannot observe drastic evolutionary change in a humans lifespan on advanced organisms that reproduce slowly. Yet there was an experiment introducing lizards to a new home, in only 36 years they have evolved a new digestive structure and reformed their heads strengthening their bite.
Actually you could capture CO2 straight from the air. From the smoke that comes out of coal and oil power plants. You could then use the same coal over and over again creating a much more efficient way to use solar power.
venter failed to create life. i recommend you read 13 things that don't make sense by michael brooks. venter just made a cell in a new way. brooks exposes the venter fraud.
making a new living cell, one that never existed before which started life as a digital representation on a computer. Is called... wait for it .. creating life.
And when it was ONLY on the computer the argument was...'ahh yes but its not alive in the real world', Now it is! thats the end of the line.
New life, designed by humans on a PC, then brought to life and now reproducing and metabolizing.
What further criteria do you need to classify this as creating life?
@MumblingMickey good question. define life. venters cell will exist for a while, then what? so what if it modelled on a computer first. he has not created life. he took an engine from a ford, stuck it in a chevy and claims to have invented a car, as it were. some of the greatest scientific minds ever have not been able to define life. is a man in a coma alive, fully? is a self replicating/changing computer program alive? what is life?
@BibleWinScienceFail Are you really resorting to the fact that you were 'told' that life or the word 'life' has not been defined and therefore this has any bearing.
It doesn't y'know for two reasons..
1. There is in fact a definition of life.
2. Even if there wasn't then creating it regardless of whether or not there is a definition is in fact creating it.
this isn't previous life that was altered, its a life form that never existed before and has no relationship to any life on earth.
@MumblingMickey - "Is called... wait for it .. creating life."
That is so bullshit. If it were, i wouldn't care but its the principle. You keep spewing this shit that is not base on facts. Don't repeat, I've read all your BS comments. Just that, BS.
What I find most interesting about you...is your username...
Maybe you'd like to point out just one... just a single example... no more or less... just one where your bible has actaully won...
By that I mean offer any advance in philosophy, politics, science or sociology or any area of human endeavor that was advanced as a direct result of the contents of the knowledge contained in this book.
To view science advances just turn your head and look around you.
@MumblingMickey the username is designed to get attention, which it does quite successfully. The Bible has had a massive influence on western & global civilisation. the 10 commandments are the foundation of our legal system. I would say that is a win. science can be of great benefit, but can only see so far. faith has to be added to it. all man made scientific theories have their anomalies, newtons law of gravity has the pioneer anomaly. theories are just tools. they wear out or break.
@Vynjira - Here the news flash. There is no truth, even this statement is not TRUE. Yo believe there is reason and truth and that just made up shit in our heads.
@MrSoyouthink News flash, in order to communicate with eachother we create words with certain meanings. You say there is no Truth, and by whatever definition you are usinjg may be right. However, it is readily apparent the problem is your spin on the word Truth.
This is a dishonest way to argue, so I have to say your statement is bullshit.
No, I did not say we do not have a common language or language in general, I said the words we use and language(s) we have developed form a closed system that offers no GREATER meaning or understanding of our existence or reality. It helps us to communicate but the definitions and meanings depend of presuppositions (axioms); things that we believe to be true but have no way within the system to prove or disprove (logically). You disagree?
@MrSoyouthink Yes, I disagree. You are trying to argue that nothing has meaning because nothing is absolute. Which is the most bullshit argument anyone could possibly make.
Guess what science works regardless if we are brains in a box and this reality is an illusion. If it didn't work we wouldn't use it, we have developed tools to understand this reality that we share.
@Vynjira - Well, first, you seem to be positioning yourself as pro science and some how you want to position me as anti science. Well, thats just bullshit. Everything I'm saying has scientific backing. Godels incompleteness theorems tell us that not only is my point valid but science itself (all systems of logic) are subject to the same principles. They are all based on axioms. To discuss nothing is an attempt to make it something.
@MrSoyouthink No everything your saying is bullshit, there is no truth, there is no meaning, there is no understanding there is only presuppositions and believe without evidence.
That is the sum of your argument and you want to pretend I have put you in the position of anti-science.
Now you are bringing up Gödel's theorem which applies to deduction from axioms, which is not a very common mode of reasoning in the sciences and far from being our only source of knowledge.
Simply amazing ....
kleykenb 2 weeks ago
I had the monster making kit as a kid.This is different by alot.For one thing the monsters that can be made with this stuff won't be fun.It might be used for good but the odds say no.Most likely the military will make gray goo and keep it in a jar just in case.It will sit there like nuclear weapons creating stress we don't need.
THX1146 1 month ago
DIGIMON
Quocorya 1 month ago
I remember this movie at 9:39 . It was called John Carpenters "The Thing" (1982).
You can clap now. The applause of the dying.
Matrix29bear 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
humans have been praying for our entire history of like 200.000+ years, and we've been only doing real science for like 100 more or less. I hope that clear out any doubts about the (non) efectiveness of prayer.
MrCIickHere 3 months ago
I was just wondering.."Do human species have complete and updated "human database of everything that human species has ever "invented"?? I mean every aspect of human species existence? Why, well in case we discoverd a earth like planet..and by then had technology to travel there...we wouldnt want to "reinvent the wheel " in everything to get the human species get going on that planet-do we ??
Apvatar3000 5 months ago
Beware of glib for-profit techno-surges. Venter is a lot smarter than Petraeus but he could still fall on his face in the minds of his investors. Then what? Will profit-motive desperation lead to lose DNA nukes?
deteodoru 6 months ago
@deteodoru He would be the ones controlling investors because they would need his intelligence, and team of scientists, not the other way around. Try again.
HybridD91 6 months ago
TED lectures 100,000 views. Justin Bieber 20 mil +
What's happening to society?
Prolific85 7 months ago 3
military can build super soldiers!
IDrop76 7 months ago
we have to plan propagate numbers. im ordinary man someone should do it.
esraretin 8 months ago
Prayers: Useless Spells cast by Christians. Rolled a Crit. Fail on your d20?
mikvance 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER It has never been a safe co existence, other wise what would we do with the words "predator" and "prey"?
whosthisguythinkheis 9 months ago
Moronic atheists need to learn Homochirality and racemic mixtures!!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Atheists are morons? You believe a snake talked to a naked woman and made her eat an apple. How moronic is that?
mikvance 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yeah, because your pastor knows more about it than Craig Venter.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
Someone please tell me how is it science tells us "intelligent design is not science" while simultaneously practicing the very thing they say is "not science"?
toobsucker 9 months ago
@toobsucker Because 'intelligent design' refers specifically to the belief that god created everything and as a result everything has been designed by an 'intelligence'. This is completely different to scientists using their intelligence to design something. 'Intelligent design is not science' refers to the fact that it's not scientific to believe that god designed everything as there's no evidence past a persons faith or opinion. It is scientific to use evidence, research and logic to design.
arb303 9 months ago
@arb303 "Because 'intelligent design' refers specifically to the belief that god created everything'
Incorrect. Creationism is the term used for intelligent design proponents who also believe the designer is God. There are atheists (Raelians) who believe in intelligent design, however their designer is a alien that they don't have to answer to on judgment day.
Just the definition of the words should be sufficient explanation. Intelligent design is anything that was designed by an intelligence
toobsucker 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker What goes on in laboratories like what Craig venter and jack szostak do, Is controlled experiments in controlled conditions and would never occur on there primordial earth!!
They also dont create anything!!!!, they borrow and copy pre existing INFORMATION to get there experiments Going!!!! rearranging DNA and genomes, is not creating life!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv let's just rearrange this, from what you say this is equivlent to this
An artist walks into his friends studio, he borrows his friends paints and takes a nice new canvas, with this canvas he makes a great painting.
His friend walks back and takes the painting from him and says thanks for the work. Since it wasn't the artists paints it can't be his painting then can it?
We can't make paint (DNA) and we can't make something thats isn't from DNA as that's what we know of.
whosthisguythinkheis 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Scientists have indeed created self replicating RNA in a lab for the first time. Not Craig Venter, though. Check it out.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
@toobsucker You're an idiot or a troll.
D1aau 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@D1aau "You're an idiot or a troll"
What tells me "You're an idiot or a troll" is the bottom of your answer bag
toobsucker 7 months ago
craig venter = satan
ParadigmShift22 9 months ago
@ParadigmShift22 In that case I'm on satan's side.
I'll make sure to say hi to you when I'm on my way tot he clinic to get myself some life prolonging DNA rejuvenation whilst you whither and die.
whosthisguythinkheis 9 months ago
@ParadigmShift22 He will save more lives than your puny prayers to the winds. In fact, your prayers will save nothing.
LesPaul2006 9 months ago 20
@LesPaul2006 Debatable.
D1aau 8 months ago
@D1aau Really? An aspirin can save more lives than the Lord's prayer. PERIOD.
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
@LesPaul2006 No life is saved. We all die, prayers or no prayers. They save an equal amount of life. None.
D1aau 8 months ago
@D1aau But I don't know if you have noticed a tiny tiny correaltion between the advancement of science and the lenghtening of human lifespan in the last 100 years. Just tiny tiny. No?
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
@LesPaul2006 Yeah it's pretty noticeable... what about it?
D1aau 7 months ago
@D1aau Well, humans have been praying for our entire history of like 200.000+ years, and we've been only doing real science for like 100 more or less. I hope that clear out any doubts about the (non) efectiveness of prayer.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
@LesPaul2006 People have been doing real science for thousands of years. Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Madame Curie, the steam engine, all more than a hundred years ago.
Real science also says you should test your hypothesis. Do a long-term study of the happiness and health of people who pray and people who don't, before you talk about prayer's effectiveness.
All of this is aside from the point. Science doesn't save lives yet, and neither does religion. Everyone dies.
D1aau 7 months ago
@D1aau
"Science doesn't save lives yet, and neither does religion. Everyone dies."
If you want to play semantic BS, then fine: Science doubles how long you can live. Religion indoctrinates people to steal their money and fuck your children. Done.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago
@D1aau "Science doesn't save lives yet, and neither does religion. Everyone dies." You are fucking dumb for saying this, Jesus cock sucker.
Foods you eat everyday? How did you grow up? Medicine you take when you are sick like a bitch? Your daily life? Internet? The computer you are using to type this line of shit?
Think again.
binbashLinuxAhole 5 months ago 4
@binbashLinuxAhole Think again? What am I supposed to be thinking about?
In case you're unaware you didn't really make a point... You made an ad hominem attack, called Jesus a cock sucker then proceeded to list a series of, what I assume to be, rhetorical questions.
If you'd like to rephrase your incoherence into a comprehensible argument I'd be more than happy to refute your claims, but until then I'm afraid all I can do is sit here and laugh at the your nonsensical babble.
D1aau 5 months ago
@LesPaul2006 what an enlightened comment. durr
mediaworks20111 5 months ago
@mediaworks20111 Hurt but true. Go back to your praying if you don't agree.
binbashLinuxAhole 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LesPaul2006 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, plagiarize a cell's Design!! Scientists COPY a limited set of genetic sequences with synthesizing machines and Templates!! They dont create anything!!!!
Its all Man made Synthetic biology!!!! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@LesPaul2006
Who is "we"???
You're clearly no scientist, so dont "pretend" like you are kiddo.
Evo-clown
buffboynick 3 weeks ago
@buffboynick "We" means mankind, it's imagination, creativity, intelligence and independence from any mystical weird powers. Advancement of technology by creativity and brainpower alone (and money, of course)
LesPaul2006 3 weeks ago
@ParadigmShift22 Venter? He's a wussy. I am SATAN.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
Why can't we let nature take it's own natural course.. Humans always have to stick their noses where they are not supposed to... changing genes ? or creating new organisms..science has it's limit to..few "genius people" may do some experiments and what if something goes wrong ?..and in the end people like me and you will have to endure the consequences.. Nature was doing just fine before humans walked on earth..
EuropeanGuy87 10 months ago
@EuropeanGuy87 there's no place humans don't have a right to stick there noses in.
animeisadrug 10 months ago
@EuropeanGuy87 nature made humans, and because nature is random, there is a bigger chance that there is a natural "thing that goes wrong" than a human "mistake that goes wrong".
c4r4d0 9 months ago
@EuropeanGuy87 I find it quite odd how everyone who complains about nature taking its own course fail to realize that nature is not something pretty, there's no such thing like Gaia watching over the way the world is running.
Just bear in mind we'd be naked, cold and mostly dead if it was not for medical and technological advancements. Ironic how its because of the comforts you gain from this that you actually have time to think about such advancements and draw up a mild disapproval of them.
whosthisguythinkheis 9 months ago 16
@whosthisguythinkheis Amazingly worded point, I agree completely.
JayDee98765 8 months ago
@JayDee98765 thanks i guess...
whosthisguythinkheis 8 months ago
@whosthisguythinkheis lol (Y)
JayDee98765 8 months ago
@whosthisguythinkheis
Nature developed slowly and balances itself. What concerns me about changing or speeding up evolution is that one aspect of life may end up moving much faster than the rest of life, that we can't account for the majority of consequences and shouldn't be making physical strides while the concept is still in its infancy.
LaMilby 8 months ago
@LaMilby its not evolution if it is self inflicted...
whosthisguythinkheis 8 months ago
@whosthisguythinkheis
Sure it is, evolution occurs based on adaptation. Adaptation contains a bit of choice to begin with.
LaMilby 8 months ago
@LaMilby its not adaption necessarily if you read any papers on it, the usual consensus is that if it isn't random micro mutation.
whosthisguythinkheis 8 months ago
@whosthisguythinkheis
Of course it's not random, it's reactionary.
LaMilby 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whosthisguythinkheis Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, plagiarize a cell's Design!! Scientists COPY a limited set of genetic sequences with synthesizing machines and Templates!! They dont create anything!!!!
Its all Man made Synthetic biology!!!! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@EuropeanGuy87 Lest you forget we are the product of nature, so our actions are also, transitively, the product of nature. Nature was doing just fine before humans and will continue doing just fine with them, and well after their extinction. We are a small and tiny blemish on Nature's giant ass, a single grain of sand resting on the beaches of the cosmic ocean. Don't over-exaggerate our importance, because i assure you we are immensely less significant than you make us out to be.
D1aau 7 months ago
@D1aau Honestly I don't know what to say, it's so hard to judge when we don't even know why we exist on this planet. We reproduce, we adapt, we eat, enjoy life and die.. but there has to be other reasons to life.. something that goes much deeper.. everything exists for a reason.. Maybe nature wants to rich a certain goal ... we keep evolving and adapting but to what point ?maybe not only for survival.. but for rather something different !..
EuropeanGuy87 7 months ago
@EuropeanGuy87
"but there has to be other reasons to life.. something that goes much deeper... everything exists for a reason"
These are assertions with absolutely no logic behind them. You have nothing to back up your claims that there must be something more. That's nothing but wishful thinking on your part. Grow a pair and realize the only purpose your life has, you have to decide for yourself.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago
@EuropeanGuy87 If it's so hard to judge then don't. Whether you disagree or not there does not have to be a greater meaning for anything. Ever.
We exist as the product of millions of years of evolution that began with primeval chemical evolution that produced amino acids that formed organisms which, since that point, have undergone natural selection leaving us with the present assortment of life. Outside of the direct consequences of our existence we have no observable meaning or purpose.
D1aau 7 months ago
Although this TED talk was candy to the brain, it does worry me how unsatisfying Venter's answer to security was, but more importantly is that even scientists make mistakes, and I fear the things they pump out of their life machines may be rushed, which could easily create some virus that can wipe out people (and other life) in mass in new horrifying ways. It just doesn't sound like he's worried enough about being careful with what they're doing...
mrbenderson005 10 months ago
This is the kind of shit that gets me pumped. It's a beautiful thing to be young, to learn, and to live in the future that so many geniuses from the previous generation have been working so hard to create for us. Watch all of the TED talks and don't just learn but act. The torch is being passed on to us and we have to step up. Peace.
andyrooney12 10 months ago
my teacher made me watch this...
thiagobesas 11 months ago
boiling water temperahers
omgweeeeeee 1 year ago
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 1 year ago
thats great, unleash the bacteria destroying all things sucky
mboundtogether 1 year ago
26 dislikes: 13 creationists and 13 Luddites
LeeStone101 1 year ago
becuase life will find a way
carbonfconfusion 1 year ago
See what Craig Venters science buddies are doing to your food.
They even admit your being used as the experiment.
YOUTUBE: effects of feeding GMO potatoes to rats part 2.
soulflyz88 1 year ago
that guy is good but he s talking about speeding up evolution and doesnt that support the destructive lifestyle and expectations of some ? expect contamination disasters :(
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce As sentient beings (sentience itself a product of evolution) we have been directing and modifying evolution for thousands of years. It can be expected (and has been demonstrated) that our ability to do this will improve. Whether this will prove detrimental, or is just another part of 'our' natural journey of evolution remains to be seen.
hisnameisfrankie 1 year ago
@hisnameisfrankie no we havent been directing evolution for thousands years. For thousands of years we have been unaware of our influence on evolution, and its only for the last century that we have started to teach and study it. with the recent awareness we gained in genetic diversity, we have realized that we have been modifying evolution amongst which positive occurences have been very rare. Our ability to improve this influence is rather obvious and comes with human progress.
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce Our ability to improve this influence is rather obvious and comes with human progress. It does not come with any security or guarantee at all. It does not rely on enthusiastic confidence nor does it rely on carefree pride. It relies not only on the wisdom to assess risks but more importantly on the awareness of the limited nature of our knowledge. we are just entering the age of genetics and yet we are still victims of the chemical age's hazards. we havent yet assumed responsability
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce we havent yet assumed responsability for the power chemistry gave us and some are already planning to spread use of genetics. as we move deeper in the core of our ecosystem and life itself, and start meddling with parts of the system without understanding its underlyings, responsibility becomes much higher and the people with means to use this power are exactly the ones who cannot assume that kind of responsability. research is crucial as it fuels progress
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@hisnameisfrankie research is crucial as it fuels progress which is the goal of human life, but this particular speech hints towards pride and disregard. your comment is a striking exemple of it.
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce Agriculture is directed evolution through artificial selection, and I do believe agriculture is thousands of years old. What has improved is our ability to work directly with genes, rather wait for generations.
hisnameisfrankie 1 year ago
@hisnameisfrankie agriculture in not directed evolution. agriculture sometimes makes use of artificial selection. selective breeding is a more appropriate term. selective breeding is an assisted form of reproduction, following nature's rules and thus providing somewhat of a safeguard. one should not make such shortcut in comparing reproduction with gene modification. yet a few examples come to mind
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce yet a few examples come to mind in regards to how selective breeding and its subjective assessment of human influence can lead to debilitating and uncontrollable consequences such as invasive species, genetic defects particularly in dogs or the rise of food allergies like gluten intolerance. as i stated we are only starting to discover the extent of our influence on the genetic level
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce as i stated we are only starting to discover the extent of our influence on the genetic level and those discoveries should not be taken as a prideful token of our supposed ability to direct and control evolution, but rather as a humble revelation of how we came to overlook fundamentals, such as the plural nature of natural selection or the prevalence of genetic diversity over short term conveniences.
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce. Unfortunately you are a little off the mark. Selective breeding is one of the mechanisms of directed evolution, however, I refer to the broader phenomena of artificial selection, where the selection pressures (or absence thereof) are applied through artificial means. By ;planting,' for instance, we interfere with the probability of different allele sets reproducing. By weeding we remove competing species. My original argument still stands. I hope this helps.
hisnameisfrankie 1 year ago
@hisnameisfrankie well, no you re the one being off the mark. whichever way you define what is happening at the gene level doesnt invalidate my first post to which you were opposing your argument. first sentence of your originial argument: "we have been directing" the verb being polysemantic. last sentence : you would rather go ahead and be faced with the consequences rather than assess the risks on a logical and philosophical level. so "my original argument still stands".
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce so "my original argument still stands". genetic science is at the edge of our knowledge and we re messing with something that calls for more responsability than even medical and health experiments. when someone talks about speeding up evolution and oil in the same speech, you d have to be a complete idiot for not getting your rationnality senses fire up.
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
@mrdotbryce I like any thinking person do have my reservations about this. The ethics and the potential for disastrous results are obvious if left unchecked. Humans have an innate sense of curiosity, that I have to assume was given to us by "God" for a reason. I have to think that this knowledge would be taken if we aren't equipped to handle it. You can't raise a child to be an adult by hobbling them and keeping them ignorant of the fact's and not allowing them to learn by trial and error.
Kymimom 11 months ago
@Kymimom i do not see on which grounds you are making the assumption that curiosity is something to be given or taken, and it does sound like irrationnal religious thinking. i find the metaphore you wrote to be too simplistic to be relevant, apart from the fact that it supports your seemingly strong position on the benefits of trial and error. remember that a trial has to be conducted in a controlled environment. neither nature nor our planet are controlled environment.
mrdotbryce 11 months ago
building nuclear power plants or cultivating genetically modified organisms on open fields are dreadful examples of terrible reasoning from influential people. if i was to come on your level, i could say that you dont throw a child in front of a car to teach him about street crossing.note that such metaphores never serve their purpose and get people drifting in pointless arguments.
mrdotbryce 11 months ago
you did say disastrous results are obvious if left unchecked. i would say those words are very interesting if you look at the recent events in japan. surely they have run every check they could possibly make, but such checking is mainly an illusion of control, and didnt teach us anything important we didnt already know. the key here is ensuring a controlled environment, being aware of the unforeseeable and the risks.
mrdotbryce 11 months ago
@mrdotbryce i did not hear anything close to this wisdom in craig venter's speech, quite the contrary. this made the argument in my first post.
mrdotbryce 11 months ago
@Kymimom Those who misues science seldomly are scientists themselves. Mostly they are ideological fundamentalists of some sort.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
@hisnameisfrankie The Banana and modern wheat is modern wheat is man-made. Apples are the result of cloning. WE've been doing this for thousands of years. It's just more advanced now.
SniperViper1000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisnameisfrankie The Banana and modern wheat is modern wheat is man-made. Apples are the result of cloning. We've been doing this for thousands of years. It's just more advanced now.
SniperViper1000 10 months ago
04:17 "the software builds its own hardware".
did he mean the preprogrammed hardware can replicate itself ?
mrdotbryce 1 year ago
Comment about the dislikes
JayPull85 1 year ago
Hey this was 2 years ago... what happened since then?
monkeytwineball 1 year ago
@monkeytwineball He did it, just recently.
tommytalks77 1 year ago
@monkeytwineball the Gulf genocide.
DeniseMatteau 1 year ago
@DeniseMatteau Bwahahaha nice.
monkeytwineball 1 year ago
@monkeytwineball they've created a cell, recently,..i mean it takes time to do all this thing, it's not easy
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7
It's pretty easy for me...
I do it billions of times every day!
monkeytwineball 1 year ago
@monkeytwineball ok smartass,..you don't create nothing,.scientists have created a cell using man made DNA
simw7 1 year ago
@simw7 For correction, they created a modified cell based off human DNA.
binbashLinuxAhole 5 months ago
@binbashLinuxAhole A modified Cell from VIRUSES. It eats Metals, it eats Flesh. Watch it mutating.. oh wait you can't anymore, they pulled the live feed 7 days ago! See "what is this in the Gulf of mexico" video for a good look.
VibrationsfromMirror 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VibrationsfromMirror Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, plagiarize a cell's Design!! Scientists COPY a limited set of genetic sequences with synthesizing machines and Templates!! They dont create anything!!!!
Its all Man made Synthetic biology!!!! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
I love the idea of designing chromosomes from scratch, but I worry, what if we make something that is better adapted to reproduction than existing life. And what about mutations of things that you design?
dlbattle100 1 year ago
764 Likes: 25 Dislikes.
25 Bible Belt Creationists.
kenjiwardenclyffe 1 year ago 3
21:15 "all life derives from other life"
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
I think the chance of this leading to an unknown danger is dwarft by the danger of some religious group killing millions with nuclear or even destroying the world by ignoring dangers like global warming. At lest most scientist realizes how important life is in the here and now. When you think your loved ones or a bunch of virgins are waiting for you when you die, you don't care what you do in the here and now.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
@Bayhuntr
strongly agree
SCordeliaB 1 year ago
@Bayhuntr
"the danger of some religious group killing millions with nuclear or even destroying the world by ignoring dangers like global warming"
Oh drop the global warming spiel. No one is going to die from global warming. Its just Al Gore's retirement fund.
The only terrorists setting off nukes will be those who have possessed them and the power to use them for a long time.
yewutube 1 year ago
@yewutube You just made my point.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
@Bayhuntr
touché
yewutube 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Make a date with sexy wife naneedj.info
darseeify 1 year ago
he sure does dodge alot of questions. when asking if they're playing god he throws it over smoothly... same for some previous questions like the one about this whole project leading into weapons
emandemz1 1 year ago
@emandemz1 He's not dodging the questions. He dismisses the god q's because it's a waste of time to debate the idea of god when you work with progress, and like he said, with every scientific discovery, you can use it for good or bad. His team is taking every precaution to make sure it doesn't happen
charmander4533 1 year ago
You know im taking a bio tech class and people say things that they dont even understand. i hate comments like this. This is a scientific revolution. These species that they created have only enough DNA to reproduce and do their functions. They can only operate under certain circumstances which is the lab. Furthermore, the DNA is so miniscule that if DNA replication did happen many of them would be mutated in no time and die from a lacking protein or certain function.
bigbangXxXx 1 year ago
This guy is a Nazi Eugenicist. There are methods to prevent destruction, there is technology today that eliminates oil/coal, we don't need to destroy nature through computers to get ORDER. This is very alarming, scientists seem to have taken the wrong turn after project Paperclip. The RODIN COIL is the answer, vortex fractal math. Nature is far more complex than these Nazi Eugenics Gates Freaks might think. IDIOTS (vaccines, flu, bullshit)
infamouscrook 1 year ago
@infamouscrook Ignore the voices...IGNORE THEM!!!
GaijinNH 1 year ago
@GaijinNH ignorance is not a bliss, so take care of that curse of yours, sheep.
infamouscrook 1 year ago
@infamouscrook oh shut the fuck up, troll
BrendanIsCool 1 year ago
@infamouscrook
You wear a hat, made of tin foil.
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@infamouscrook well next time your down with a disease try not to go to the doctors and see how long you last.
whosthisguythinkheis 9 months ago
Does anybody realize how dangerous this could be. Foreign species can destroy ecosystems. Now what if they make some of these bacteria that are factories for whatever chemical they like, they start growing all over and through off the global ecosystem. Foreign species can be very aggressive.
Yagmilner 1 year ago
@Yagmilner We'll liberalize them by recruiting them into the democratic party.
IlyaKhleboyko 1 year ago
@Yagmilner people are stupider than maggots, so how can they expect what's coming? They are plain idiots to recognize that artificial life is going to bring a total collapse in nature. Or at least most living creatures, until nature restores balance.. Ignorant, arrogant "scientists", taught in universities by Ex Nazi professors, this is what you get. Eugenics 101.
infamouscrook 1 year ago
@infamouscrook I don't know if I would go that far, but I don't know if they are being cautious enough.
Yagmilner 1 year ago
@Yagmilner Your not knowing if they are being cautious enough is the equivilant to my not knowing if they are being overly cautious. Unless you know the scientists, been to the lab, and looked at their msds's, containment procedures, and a multitude of other safeties, you can only speculate going on no information, which is pointless
charmander4533 1 year ago
@infamouscrook Yeah, people are "stupider" than maggots, as you just proved. Nazi professors for teachers in eugenics eh?
charmander4533 1 year ago
@3:05 "synthesizing DNA is very difficult" yet science will tell you it evolved in a primordial ocean millions of years ago, and turned into the first living organism. The scientific community is beginning to look more like comedy central.
Take the time an actually listen to what this guy is saying, look at how much work it took intelligent human beings to create a manipulated life form, and science says at one time it did it all by itself millions of years ago.
PLEASE DON'T BE FOOL.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate It took them a few years to create what evolution took millions of years to do. You cant compare what they did to evolution. Synthesizing DNA at the rate that they did was a great challenge. Thats what he meant by "synthesizing DNA is very difficult". Its pretty easy to synthesize DNA if you dont care how fast it is made. It is very dangerous to criticize scientists that dedicate their WHOLE lives to research, if you dnt take 5 seconds to understand what they r really saying.
s206031009 1 year ago
@s206031009 Somewhere along your life your mental faculties have been retarded. Now I don't mean the slow, clumsy retard type, but just you have allowed your mind to believe in science fiction as if it was reality. Evolution never happened. I study biology and I know that every cell in your body is loaded with moleculer machinery, all machines are created by an intelligence.
The Theory of evolution is a Lie, it never happened. There is no evidence to support it. JUST GIVE IT UP.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate The theory of evolution couldnt have happened because its a theory and theories do not happen. Evolution happened and there is nothing you can to to disprove it. You can disprove the theory of evolution by means of natural selection however you would still need a model to describe evolutionary change. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact
0decimator0 1 year ago
@0decimator0 What proof do you have that organisms evolved. and please don't say a bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotic.
Give me a solid proof of macro evolution.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate There is no such thing as macro or micro evolution, there is just evolution. The entire fossil record is proof for evolution. Genetics confirm evolutionary lineages. But you cannot observe drastic evolutionary change in a humans lifespan on advanced organisms that reproduce slowly. Yet there was an experiment introducing lizards to a new home, in only 36 years they have evolved a new digestive structure and reformed their heads strengthening their bite.
0decimator0 1 year ago
@rahimi5 Pwned. It's already done.
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
I hope us taxpayers aren't expected to pay for this waste of time and energy.
AlinedeWinter 1 year ago
@AlinedeWinter oh shut up
BrendanIsCool 1 year ago
@AlinedeWinter idiot.
KingObould 1 year ago
@AlinedeWinter go away.
NickRoeder 1 year ago
@AlinedeWinter Could you go into detail about why you think it's a waste?
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
Actually you could capture CO2 straight from the air. From the smoke that comes out of coal and oil power plants. You could then use the same coal over and over again creating a much more efficient way to use solar power.
khatack 1 year ago
Venter here is, i think, the genius of the 21st century. This guy is really amazing.
Neoli2300 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YES WE CAN!
1ProbablyHateYou 1 year ago
Creating life ? really?
i'm not a religious person but they didn't creat shit.
they just used ALREDY CREATED DNA and put it in another cell.
geez and people call this one of the biggest achievement in science.
TheProd100 1 year ago
@TheProd100 Yes, he said that in the presentation....
Dumass88 1 year ago
venter failed to create life. i recommend you read 13 things that don't make sense by michael brooks. venter just made a cell in a new way. brooks exposes the venter fraud.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail
making a new living cell, one that never existed before which started life as a digital representation on a computer. Is called... wait for it .. creating life.
And when it was ONLY on the computer the argument was...'ahh yes but its not alive in the real world', Now it is! thats the end of the line.
New life, designed by humans on a PC, then brought to life and now reproducing and metabolizing.
What further criteria do you need to classify this as creating life?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey good question. define life. venters cell will exist for a while, then what? so what if it modelled on a computer first. he has not created life. he took an engine from a ford, stuck it in a chevy and claims to have invented a car, as it were. some of the greatest scientific minds ever have not been able to define life. is a man in a coma alive, fully? is a self replicating/changing computer program alive? what is life?
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail Are you really resorting to the fact that you were 'told' that life or the word 'life' has not been defined and therefore this has any bearing.
It doesn't y'know for two reasons..
1. There is in fact a definition of life.
2. Even if there wasn't then creating it regardless of whether or not there is a definition is in fact creating it.
this isn't previous life that was altered, its a life form that never existed before and has no relationship to any life on earth.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey - "Is called... wait for it .. creating life."
That is so bullshit. If it were, i wouldn't care but its the principle. You keep spewing this shit that is not base on facts. Don't repeat, I've read all your BS comments. Just that, BS.
BeatleEDs 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail
What I find most interesting about you...is your username...
Maybe you'd like to point out just one... just a single example... no more or less... just one where your bible has actaully won...
By that I mean offer any advance in philosophy, politics, science or sociology or any area of human endeavor that was advanced as a direct result of the contents of the knowledge contained in this book.
To view science advances just turn your head and look around you.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey the username is designed to get attention, which it does quite successfully. The Bible has had a massive influence on western & global civilisation. the 10 commandments are the foundation of our legal system. I would say that is a win. science can be of great benefit, but can only see so far. faith has to be added to it. all man made scientific theories have their anomalies, newtons law of gravity has the pioneer anomaly. theories are just tools. they wear out or break.
BibleWinScienceFail 1 year ago
@BibleWinScienceFail The Bible single handedly set Humanity back 15 centuries and the 10 commandments has nothing to do with our legal system. lol
@BeatleEDs You mean less than 30% and nearly half of those were indoctrinated, but its a popularity contest right?
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - Aren't you being indoctrinated? Isn't all this a part of nature?
You make no sense, you're sounding like a fool. Isnt everything a population contest?
You don't really buy into this atheism bullshit, do you?
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago
@MrSoyouthink By who? Christians? I was, not anymore.
No the truth isn't a popularity contest.
Buy into not believing you? Huh? You say II make no sense.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - Here the news flash. There is no truth, even this statement is not TRUE. Yo believe there is reason and truth and that just made up shit in our heads.
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago
@MrSoyouthink News flash, in order to communicate with eachother we create words with certain meanings. You say there is no Truth, and by whatever definition you are usinjg may be right. However, it is readily apparent the problem is your spin on the word Truth.
This is a dishonest way to argue, so I have to say your statement is bullshit.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - "we create words", yes we do. We define the world. Where does the meaning come from?
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago
@MrSoyouthink The meaning comes from people trying to communicate.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - Yes and that has no meaning.
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago
@MrSoyouthink The fact we have a common language that you are trying to dispute shows how utterly wrong you are.
I'll prove my point again by saying "Troll somewhere else bra."
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - Troll? WTF are you talking about?
No, I did not say we do not have a common language or language in general, I said the words we use and language(s) we have developed form a closed system that offers no GREATER meaning or understanding of our existence or reality. It helps us to communicate but the definitions and meanings depend of presuppositions (axioms); things that we believe to be true but have no way within the system to prove or disprove (logically). You disagree?
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago
@MrSoyouthink Yes, I disagree. You are trying to argue that nothing has meaning because nothing is absolute. Which is the most bullshit argument anyone could possibly make.
Guess what science works regardless if we are brains in a box and this reality is an illusion. If it didn't work we wouldn't use it, we have developed tools to understand this reality that we share.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - Well, first, you seem to be positioning yourself as pro science and some how you want to position me as anti science. Well, thats just bullshit. Everything I'm saying has scientific backing. Godels incompleteness theorems tell us that not only is my point valid but science itself (all systems of logic) are subject to the same principles. They are all based on axioms. To discuss nothing is an attempt to make it something.
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago
@MrSoyouthink No everything your saying is bullshit, there is no truth, there is no meaning, there is no understanding there is only presuppositions and believe without evidence.
That is the sum of your argument and you want to pretend I have put you in the position of anti-science.
Now you are bringing up Gödel's theorem which applies to deduction from axioms, which is not a very common mode of reasoning in the sciences and far from being our only source of knowledge.
So you are wrong sir.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira - Well, than whats the truth and how do we find it? Is it true that you exist?
You don't understand the Godel connection and probably got the BS from some stupid website so I wont bother correcting you or whoever said that BS.
MrSoyouthink 1 year ago