Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cow Puncher
He didn't create life, he modified existing life. Therefore he didn't create something artificial. Without the previously existing bacterium, he wouldn't have anything. He modified something artificially, but it isn't artificial life, it's an artificially modified organism.
|
Let's continue this argument to its logical conclusion:
1)He didn't create life, he modified existed molecular structures, but did not create those molecules himself; hence, he relied upon existing molecules and didn't create anything.
2)He didn't create life, he modified existing atomic structures. Unless you invent a whole new atom, you haven't done shit!
3)Buh, buh, buh quarks and leptons and dark matter wree hear before the atom! Even if you make new atoms, and use that to form new animlas, it's still teh JEBUS that started it all!
Cowpuncher, your argument really doesn't make a lot of sense. These scientists created anew strain of DNA and borrowed an existing host cell to serve as the environment in which said DNA could replicate. That's new life. Monkeys (with whom we share a common ancestor) inhabit forests. That doesn't mean the forest is part of the monkey. Similarly, DNAs inhabit cellular structures. It doesn't necessarily mean that the DNA, in and of itself, isn't a lifeform.
