Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote: Antikythera mechanism is an ancient analog computer ... Yet no one presumed that it was naturally occuring. Why? What was it about this object that allowed for scientists to determine that it was intelligently designed?

sandy_mcd wrote:Because we know that brass does not naturally occur, especially in the form of gears. We can compare non-man-made objects with man-made objects.

Oh really? how much brass did they find in it?

Antikythera mechanism
It is believed to be made of a low-tin bronze alloy (95% copper, 5% tin), but the device's advanced state of corrosion has made it impossible to perform an accurate compositional analysis.[11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Someone didn't do their research very well

KBCid wrote: Wittgenstein (1980, p. 1e) made the same point as follows: "We tend to take the speech of a Chinese for inarticulate gurgling. Someone who understands Chinese will recognize language in what he hears. ...

sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, if you already know what something is, you can identify it. No Design needed. Wittgenstein (falsely as Beanybag points out) is also saying - we can recognize a language if we already know what it is, otherwise, not so much. The argument isn't from Design, it is from Familiarity.

Familiarity with what? familiarity with something designed? recognizing specifiable attributes that only designed things exhibit maybe?

sandy_mcd wrote:In the case of Design, we can recognize how man does things. But if we put all natural objects (cells, etc) in the unknown-cause category, we have no idea what nature can accomplish. We know brass doesn't naturally occur in machined form; we do not know this about cells.

Actually its not just man that does things intelligently. apes do it, birds do it. Many forms of life exhibit intelligent design ability.
We actually have no idea what nature can accomplish which is why the prevailing 'belief' is that it can do everything. How scientific is that? can you show me some scientific test that show what types of systems natural causes can form?
Of course we all know that neither brass nor any other 3 dimensionally replicating formation of matter (that can't be intrinsically tied to a natural cause such as crytaline structure or snowflakes) occurs naturally. It requires a control system to make it happen. The essence of my continuing point

KBCid wrote: Spatial positioning of a single pattern could be a random occurance but spatial positioning of multiple patterns that have relationships to one another is not random. It shows that a system of precision spatial control must exist to make the 3D formation correctly.

sandy_mcd wrote:I can't imagine any biologist has ever claimed that embryo development occurs by random chance. Here's a 1956 paper which addresses some of the coordination necessary http://www.pnas.org/content/43/1/184.full.pdf. And there are earlier ones as well.

Neither do I.
All of the papers I linked shows what is necessary to replicate 3 dimensional formations of matter. So what is your point? You can't argue my point by adding more evidence to it.

sandy_mcd wrote:Here's a 1970 paper with a slightly different view:http://www.pnas.org/content/67/1/156.full.pdf
"There is not only the evidence of the sorting-out of a random mixture of cells or of tissue fragments into groups of similar cells, there is even the evidence of reconstitution of an entire organism such as a sponge after artificial random mixing of its constituent cells. There are also similar observations showing reaggregation of an artificialy disarrayed set of embryonic cells into a structure resembling the previous embryo, and this in a manner as if the state of differentiation were remembered by the cells."

It would appear that these papers also recognise that a system of control for 3D spatial positioning is in effect and again what is your point? These are the exact same things I am pointing out. I can add these papers to all the rest. Of course they are a bit older and are much simpler in what was understood at that time.

sandy_mcd wrote:Again, this is a matter of philosophy. I don't see that this 3D and spatial positioning adds much to the argument that life is too complex to occur naturally; it seems that most people can reach a conclusion without this extra line of reasoning.

Philosophy has nothing to do with mechanical engineering. My point involves systems... well understood systems. If most people can reach a conclusion without this line of reasoning then there is nothing to debate right? Unless of course there is something to having multiple lines of evidence to make a more accurate conclusion.

KBCid wrote:If you are certain that intelligent design is not an acceptable consideration then why are you posting in a Christian forum where it is continually asserted that an intelligent designer is the only answer for how 3 dimensional life began?

sandy_mcd wrote:The issue here isn't whether there is a creator but whether complexity is proof of a creator. Many Christians do not accept the latter.

So if many christian don't accept it then they must be correct right?

KBCid wrote: If however it falls all the way into outerspace and I have no other observaable evidence to work with then I would be fairly safe in attributing it to an intelligent cause.

sandy_mcd wrote:So helium balloons are moved by an intelligent agent? [That's the difference between observation (most things fall) and an explanation (theory of gravity).]

Can a helium balloon (fall all the way into outerspace). You wouldn't be trying to argue mechanics with a mechanical engineer would you?
There is a physical reason why a helium balloon cannot fly all the way to outerspace. Can you guess what it might be?
Mechanical engineers have to understand physics in order to perform their function. Without such an understanding I wouldn't be much of an engineer, I would probabaly be more like an evolutionary biologist.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Pardon my rather ornery reply. Even so, my intention is to have a bit of a sense of humor here (by being overly-serious and "splitting hairs".) I hope ya don't mind.

are those naturally formed 3 dimensional hairs or designed hairs? inquiring minds want to know... however, I am certain that there are at least a few christians that could care less... lol.

3 dimensional formations of matter ... such a simple concept and yet somehow; Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground... Now how did God spatially position all the 3 dimensional matter that makes up a man? From my experience the system used is irreducibly complex and would require intelligence.

Byblos wrote:It most certainly helped to put things into perspective. Thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to consider these things.

KBCid wrote:We actually have no idea what nature can accomplish which is why the prevailing 'belief' is that it can do everything.

Great! We agree that natural causes (given the present understanding of nature) cannot be ruled out; i.e., there is no proof of design.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Your regard of helium balloons being moved by an intelligent agent is a comedic interpretation, though yes, it can be said that at least at some point the helium balloons were moved by an intelligent agent. ... Lighter gasses rise while heavier gasses descend and stay lower. ... Even so, my intention is to have a bit of a sense of humor here (by being overly-serious and "splitting hairs".) I hope ya don't mind.

OK, then just consider helium without the manmade container. It naturally goes into outer space.
My point was that simplistic interpretations (e.g., things fall) are often not correct. Which was supposed to fit in with this subject somehow.
If heavier gases descend, why aren't we drowning in argon, carbon dioxide, ozone etc with the nitrogen and oxygen over our heads? Aren't you just splitting airs?


[edit] I guess my point was that we think gravity makes things fall but the fact that helium (or hydrogen, in or out of a lightweight container) rises is odd but we accept it. The earth seems flat but almost all of us accept that it is fairly spheroidal. We believe a lot of things that are counter-intuitive but we learned them at such a young age and the belief is so widespread that the incongruity doesn't strike us anymore. That mountains accrue by small movements is another oddity accepted. So when biologists/chemists who have studied development for many years and are well aware of the complexity and organisation don't see the need (at least yet) for a designer, I defer to them. Perhaps when we have learned more, but for now the situation does not demand a designer.

sandy_mcd wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:Your regard of helium balloons being moved by an intelligent agent is a comedic interpretation, though yes, it can be said that at least at some point the helium balloons were moved by an intelligent agent. ... Lighter gasses rise while heavier gasses descend and stay lower. ... Even so, my intention is to have a bit of a sense of humor here (by being overly-serious and "splitting hairs".) I hope ya don't mind.

OK, then just consider helium without the manmade container. It naturally goes into outer space.
My point was that simplistic interpretations (e.g., things fall) are often not correct. Which was supposed to fit in with this subject somehow.
If heavier gases descend, why aren't we drowning in argon, carbon dioxide, ozone etc with the nitrogen and oxygen over our heads? Aren't you just splitting airs?


[edit] I guess my point was that we think gravity makes things fall but the fact that helium (or hydrogen, in or out of a lightweight container) rises is odd but we accept it. The earth seems flat but almost all of us accept that it is fairly spheroidal. We believe a lot of things that are counter-intuitive but we learned them at such a young age and the belief is so widespread that the incongruity doesn't strike us anymore. That mountains accrue by small movements is another oddity accepted. So when biologists/chemists who have studied development for many years and are well aware of the complexity and organisation don't see the need (at least yet) for a designer, I defer to them. Perhaps when we have learned more, but for now the situation does not demand a designer.

In any case, my thoughts of heavier gasses descending was not quite accurate, yes, sorry. Wouldn't it strike you as odd, though, that biologists and chemists don't seem to see the need for a designer? Or is it that they admit it seems more like a designer but are then told to say that it's evolution instead? Hmm? You say you'd defer to people who are unwilling to counter the notion, and you assume that this doesn't illustrate the need for a designer, even when it's clear that complex objects with organized function can only, that we know of, happen through intelligent action?

My point was that it takes the exploitation of natural forces by intelligence in order to cause balloons to rise. The balloon needs to be released in order to float up. Intelligent effort is a part of the process. Also, I was meaning to joke somewhat.

Okay, say that there's this robot. It's got complex moving parts and a series of nanomachines that serve the purpose of self-replication to repair injuries, building up parts, and sustain the machine. Say that it was somehow capable of reproducing with another robot of a slightly different form by combining programmed material into forming and manufacturing another robot. There are no known blueprints or records of this type of robot having been designed, for no known reason.

Would you then assume that this robot and other similar robots were naturalistically formed? The robot seems to somehow be almost identical to organic life in terms of how it functions, replicates, and sustains itself, and yet there's no apparent evidence that it was designed, other than merely taking a close look and mapping out how things work for these robots.

Would you conclude that these were evolved machines, or would you conclude that they were created by some radical genius who didn't appear to leave any trace of his or her existence other than the machines themselves and their programming for assembly and construction and repair of the robots?

In any case, this is a joking portrayal of ridiculously organic-like robots, an absurd scenario, but granted, what would you think if you were to encounter such robots for the first time?

Obviously it would require some advanced expertise on engineering and mechanics, as well as computer programming in order to get a system like this to work. It's too complex of a process to be naturalistically formed, and one can see that it seems to replicate biological organisms in nearly every sense with its mechanical function. Of course, at first glance you wouldn't know this, but after decades of studying these machines and trying to figure out elements of how they work, would you still assume that these machines evolved or that they were created?

Granted, you may argue that them being mechanical in nature means that they were obviously created by an intelligent life form, but setting that aside, what would you think?

A goofy argument quite out-of-place and would be better reserved for a science-fiction novel.

FlawedIntellect wrote:In any case, my thoughts of heavier gasses descending was not quite accurate, yes, sorry.

It is no big deal and had nothing to do with the discussion. I only mentioned it so i could through in the splitting pun. [Although people do make that argument regarding ozone and other stuff. The real world is complex and simplifications are often necessary, but the limits have to be considered.]

FlawedIntellect wrote:My point was that it takes the exploitation of natural forces by intelligence in order to cause balloons to rise.

But it doesn't take any intelligent intervention for the helium to dissipate into the outer atmosphere. It happens naturally all the time. The balloon just makes it easier to observe. So i guess i don't see the point.

FlawedIntellect wrote: even when it's clear that complex objects with organized function can only, that we know of, happen through intelligent action?

It's that "that we know of" is the kicker. I don't feel that we humans understand chemistry and biology well enough to say at this point what they are capable of. Perpetual motion machines, no. Complex organization, maybe. In the past, people knew that the continental borders looked like they matched but why and how would anyone think the continents moved? There is a difference between doing something and showing something can't be done. An intelligent person can make meaningful insights into fields they are not that familiar with; but to put limits on fields one is not familiar with is a totally different proposition.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Okay, say that there's this robot. It's got complex moving parts and a series of nanomachines that serve the purpose of self-replication to repair injuries, building up parts, and sustain the machine. Say that it was somehow capable of reproducing with another robot of a slightly different form by combining programmed material into forming and manufacturing another robot. There are no known blueprints or records of this type of robot having been designed, for no known reason.

Would you then assume that this robot and other similar robots were naturalistically formed? The robot seems to somehow be almost identical to organic life in terms of how it functions, replicates, and sustains itself, and yet there's no apparent evidence that it was designed, other than merely taking a close look and mapping out how things work for these robots. ...
Granted, you may argue that them being mechanical in nature means that they were obviously created by an intelligent life form, but setting that aside, what would you think?.

This is a very good example. It isolates the key components without introducing extraneous complications.
I would conclude it is not naturalistically formed:
1) The mechanical part as you say.
2) Complete lack of anything remotely similar observed today.

1) The mechanical part is the key part, which cannot be over-emphasized. Consider a watch found on a beach - you don't even have to see a picture, the very word tells you it is designed. And in the examples of design used, there is always this human/non-naturally occurring contribution which gives the answer even before design is considered.
2) People have a reasonable grasp of the basics of physics/chemistry/biology. No scientist is going to believe that such a robot popped up on its own. Unoxidized metals, silicon or other electronic chips, don't just spontaneously form into working robots. Likewise, no scientists believes a fully functioning cell just popped up on its own out of a brew of molecules. But the chemistry of carbon is incredibly complex. Scientists see no reason to not believe in an incremental process. Molecules can undergo lots of reactions to make new molecules; metal does not machine itself into forms.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Or is it that they admit it seems more like a designer but are then told to say that it's evolution instead?

The conspiracy theory is an entirely different topic. Who has the authority and power to tell scientists what to say? Why would the scientists go along? Who would want to spend a scientific career just producing sham results for public consumption when other people get to do real science?

KBCid wrote:We actually have no idea what nature can accomplish which is why the prevailing 'belief' is that it can do everything.

sandy_mcd wrote:Great! We agree that natural causes (given the present understanding of nature) cannot be ruled out; i.e., there is no proof of design.

Given the present understanding of nature it can't be ruled in.
If you want it to be considered then provide evidence that it can form such a system. You will need evidence to infer from. We are trying to explain an effect from a cause.
Who here has proof for their concept? no one. Every intelligent person knows that it is impossible to test a historic occurance by scientific method.
So if you require proof as the only acceptable form of explanation then show me your scientific paper on how chance did it. otherwise we will rule it out too and have no concept at all.
A line of evidence for design is in the 3 dimensional arrangement of matter which only intelligence has proven the causal ability to form. How many causes have you observed that can create irreducibly complex interactive systems? Show me a scientific paper by scientific method that backs a concept of natural occurance.

sandy_mcd wrote:Consider a watch found on a beach - you don't even have to see a picture, the very word tells you it is designed. And in the examples of design used, there is always this human/non-naturally occurring contribution which gives the answer even before design is considered.

Consider finding an organism we will call Synthia. It exhibits most of the same things as other organisms do. Designed or natural cause?

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
The man-made single cell "creature", which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works.
Now Dr Venter believes organism, nicknamed Synthia, will pave the way for more complex creatures that can transform environmental waste into clean fuel, vaccinate against disease and soak up pollution.
"We are entering an era limited only by our imagination," he said announcing the research published in the journal Science.

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.
The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.
Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.

Nevertheless it is the beginning of the process that could lead to creation of much more complicated species, and into a world of artificial animals and people only envisaged in films such as Ridley Scott's Bladerunner and Steven Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745 ... g-god.html

So now we have intelligent agency arranging matter into the 3 dimensional formation of life. We have empirical, repeatable, scientific method type of evidence that intelligence can arrange matter into a living system. Tell us how would you now be able to determine if an organism was natural or designed?
Again show us a natural cause that can perform the same result. You have absolutely nothing but a religious belief in natures abilities, a belief that arbitrarily infers the ability of nature to cause the same thing that intelligence has proven its ability to do. I have zero evidence to back an assertion about your god and numerous lines of evidence from observation and mechanical engineering to back an inference of intelligent design.

Did anyone notice this from my last post?

"The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745 ... g-god.html

Venter knows where the dividing line is. Neither life nor evolution can arise without the ability to replicate. Life is a composition of matter with a 3 dimensional form. The form or 3 dimensional organization of the matter is what gives life its functional ability to replicate. Life cannot exist without a control system that can cause matter to be arranged into specifiable and highly complex interactive systematic formations. Such a system of control cannot evolve into existence since evolution can't function until replication exists. So basically if one wishes to posit natural cause for the origination of life they would be asserting that a system of control for the spatial and temporal arrangement of matter just poofed into existence. This is not just a complexity argument. It is now becoming a specifiable complexity argument. We can now understand what would be required in a mechanical way for life to come into existence.

Let's try a bit of mental excercising here. Can anyone give me a list of functions that would be minimally required in order to control the formation of matter into a living form? What do you think would be minimally required to control where matter is positioned in 3 dimensional space?

This excercise if you follow it through will open your understanding to the extent of the specified complexity that would be required to be in place at the moment physical life could begin and it will also illuminate you in a less questioned area "how exactly can biological evolution function". Most of us have heard the ad nauseum simplified explanation of what evolution is supposed to be.....
I will here reference that simplified explanation from Talkorigins site so no one can argue that it is my own view or an ID or religiously slanted POV;

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html

And we can look at this meaning a bit closer with a mechanical engineering lens. To these people evolution describes cause and effect relationships and in fact it does. None of this explanation is a lie, this is indeed how something that has genetically changed will be retained in the population over time. However,
The first thing I notice in the simplified explanation is the absense of the explanation for how the heritable changes occurs. To an engineer that needs enough information to precisely understand a process this bit of information is a huge missing component for a scientific explanation of how a system functions.
For all of us who desire a proper explanation our united question should be "how does heritable change occur". Logic dictates that a system has to exist which involves repetition and this repetition of necessity must be in the 3 dimensional form which the asserted system of evolution has an effect on....
So if logic has carried us collectively in a correct path we should all be able to realise the implication that occurs at this point. If the system of evolution requires heritble change to occur prior to it having any effect then it is an effect and not a cause. Physics demands that for every cause there is an effect and conversly for every effect there is a cause. Evolution is an effect. It had no capability of acting until a system occured to allow it have functionality.
All of those who posit a belief in an intelligent agency being a requisite to the existence of life and all the species that make up life should be asking any doubters "how could a system of replication for formations of matter arise on its own". This is the true dividing line for any explanation of origins. This is where we can all focus our attention and explore the physics of what would be minimally required in a system to perform such a function that results in the effect of evolution.

Engineering spatial control of multiple differentiation fates within a stem cell population

Introduction
The musculoskeletal system comprises multiple tissue types including bone, muscle, tendon, ligament and cartilage as well as their respective tissue interfaces such as bone-to-tendon entheses and muscle-to-tendon junctions. The maintenance and repair of these multi-tissue structures involves the spatial control of stem cell differentiation toward tissue-specific cells, such as osteoblasts, tenocytes and myocytes [1]. This process is regulated by physical and biochemical microenvironmental cues imparted by the interactions of cells with their extracellular matrix (ECM), neighboring cells, and secreted local and systemic signaling molecules, including growth factors...

...As such, GF sequestration by the ECM immobilizes GFs to specific locations, which in turn imparts the temporal and spatial cues required for directing cell behaviors such as cell adhesion, migration, proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis, which are vital for orchestrating complex processes such as development, maintenance and wound healing
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/Web/People ... 202011.pdf

O.O

From molecular to macroscopic via the rational design of a self-assembled 3D DNA crystal
We live in a macroscopic three-dimensional (3D) world, but our best description of the structure of matter is at the atomic and molecular scale. Understanding the relationship between the two scales requires a bridge from the molecular world to the macroscopic world. Connecting these two domains with atomic precision is a central goal of the natural sciences, but it requires high spatial control of the 3D structure of matter1. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 74.html#B1


SPATIAL CONTROL OF CELL EXPANSION BY THE PLANT CYTOSKELETON
The cytoskeleton plays important roles in plant cell shape determination by influencing the patterns in which cell wall materials are deposited. Cortical microtubules are thought to orient the direction of cell expansion primarily via their influence on the deposition of cellulose into the wall, although the precise nature of the microtubule-cellulose relationship remains unclear. In both tip-growing and diffusely growing cell types, F-actin promotes growth and also contributes to the spatial regulation of growth. F-actin has been proposed to play a variety of roles in the regulation of secretion in expanding cells, but its functions in cell growth control are not well understood. Recent work highlighted in this review on the morphogenesis of selected cell types has yielded substantial new insights into mechanisms governing the dynamics and organization of cytoskeletal filaments in expanding plant cells and how microtubules and F-actin interact to direct patterns of cell growth. Nevertheless, many important questions remain to be answered.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... de=cellbio


Frontiers in Additive Manufacturing
...We can look at the evolution of additive manufacturing technologies past, present, and future as a series of milestones in human control over physical matter...

Printing Forms: Programming the Shape of Matter
The first milestone, which is maturing today, has been unprecedented control over the shape of objects. Machines can now fabricate objects of almost any material—from nylon to glass, from chocolate to titanium—and with any complex geometry. This capability is transforming not only engineering, but also many other fields, from biology to archaeology to education to the culinary arts.

Printing Composition: Shaping the Internal Structure of Materials
The second milestone, which has just appeared on the horizon, is controlling the composition of matter—not just shaping external geometry, but also shaping the internal structure of materials with unprecedented fidelity...
We are eliminating traditional limitations imposed by conventional manufacturing when each part had to be made of a single material. Instead, microstructure can now be specified with micron-scale precision. This will make it feasible for you or me to print a custom tennis racket to enhance our backhands or for a doctor to produce a replacement spinal disc implant tailored for a specific patient.
The number of possibilities is enormous, but so far few theories can predict the properties of these new materials, and few designers are prepared to exploit the new design space. Clearly, we will need new design tools to augment human creativity.
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/57865/58052.aspx

Why Care About Nanotechnology?
Nanotechnology is really just another word for the chemistry of building new materials. The history of our species could be written as progress in our ability to control the structure of matter on finer and finer scales. Until fairly recently, these scales were macroscopic, but we as a species are now learning how to control the structure of matter to make devices with smaller and smaller features, particularly for electronics and molecular biology applications.
Nanotechnology largely deals with organizing matter on the same scale that the cell does, a few nanometers. Needless to say, it is important for the public to understand the key features of all aspects of science, and more and more of science is currently falling under the rubric of nanotechnology.
What are your research goals?
In a nutshell, we seek to control the structure of matter in three dimensions on the finest possible scale. We work with branched DNA molecules to do this. The combination of branched DNA and cohesive interactions, such as sticky ends allows one to design and to build specifically structured networks in 2D and 3D.
We have demonstrated this in 2D, and we are working to improve our arrays (crystals) in 3D.
Why do we want to do this? The first goal is to use our branched DNA system to scaffold the organization of biological macromolecules into crystalline arrays, thus overcoming the crystallization problem of biological crystallography. This will enable the 3D structural characterization of potential drug targets, leading to rational drug design.
If one can imagine organizing biological components this way, one can also imagine organizing nanoelectronic components in the same way. It is commonly accepted that the currently used top-down methods of building computer components will hit the wall in the next decade or so. DNA nanotechnology will enable us to assemble these components bottom-up. This will lead to smaller, faster architectures. In addition, bottom-up assembly offers the possibiity of 3D, not just 2D organization.
Our other goals involve the use of DNA nanomechanical devices. We have built robust sequence-dependent devices, and a little nanorobot that walks on a sidewalk. We have used the sequence-dependent devices to build a machine that emulates the action of a ribosome: It translates DNA signals into polymer assembly instructions, just as the ribosome translates the genetic code into protein assembly instructions.
Having built this prototype, we hope to generalize the device to build polymers with the same specificity that the cell uses to build proteins. We envision the nanorobot as a component in a nano-assembly line. It could bring supplies to particular stations along the line. In addition, a group of them could be organized to weave polymers together into stronger fibers.
http://www.foresight.org/nano/NedSeeman.html


SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CONTROL OF DIFFERENTIATION AND CELL CYCLE PROGRESSION IN CAULOBACTER CRESCENTUS
The dimorphic and intrinsically asymmetric bacterium Caulobacter crescentus has become an important model organism to study the bacterial cell cycle, cell polarity, and polar differentiation. A multifaceted regulatory network orchestrates the precise coordination between the development of polar organelles and the cell cycle. One master response regulator, CtrA, directly controls the initiation of chromosome replication as well as several aspects of polar morphogenesis and cell division. CtrA activity is temporally and spatially regulated by multiple partially redundant control mechanisms, such as transcription, phosphorylation, and targeted proteolysis. A multicomponent signal transduction network upstream CtrA, containing histidine kinases CckA, PleC, DivJ, and DivL and the essential response regulator DivK, contributes to the control of CtrA activity in response to cell cycle and developmental cues. An intriguing feature of this signaling network is the dynamic cell cycle–dependent polar localization of its components, which is believed to have a novel regulatory function. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... 502.091006

KBCid wrote:Consider finding an organism we will call Synthia. It exhibits most of the same things as other organisms do. Designed or natural cause?

Pile of sand - designed or naturally caused? Some things we just can't tell the difference.

Sort of a side track.

KBCid wrote:"The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life."

So is this cell alive? What if Venter had used a human's genome? Would that be alive? Would it be human?