Artifical Life Created in Laboratory? No but a Big Step Forward

It looks like artifical life has been created recently. Dr. Mark Venter with the help
of a software program and a pre-existing bacterial host with it's Dna created a synthetic cell. So does this prove that evolution is a random natural process? or could it be that intelligence aids in the process?. By looking at this recent experiment i have to say that it is intelligence that aided in the process, because the pre-existing bacterial host with it's Dna itself has intelligence that aided in the process of creating the synthetic cell.

Of course that is my interpretation of what happened I'm sure N aturalists would disagree with me. It certainly is groundbreaking and will lead too new cures for diseases, Artificial DNA might also solve the problem of developing vaccines for quickly evolving viruses like the common cold or HIV, creating biofuels that would help clean the environment.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/05/assessing_the_impact_of_venter.html

Is Their A Reason And Purpose For Why We Are Here?

I shall argue that with a yes, i'm sure materialists can come up with many reasons showing in their view that natural selection alone can explain life as we know it and can even account for subjectivity that we all have inside ourselves. I have no doubt that natural selection indeed plays a role in the evolution of our species. However i don't think it's the whole story, as we all have this inner subjective character to ourselves. This subjective character i will call the soul, is something in my view that has gone through cycles of change over a period of time. I think that if reincarnation is real which their is some good evidence that it maybe real, well then it could be that our souls are recycled when they go to the afterlife but the come back to physical reality. Common knowledge tells us that we appear to have free will, one simple observation of this is that the arm won't raise on its own, its up to me if that arm will raise or not.


Now you can ignore that observation by saying well that is the thing with the arm, somedays it will move and sometimes it won't. But the fact that moves up and down, that it's up to me if the arm will go up or not.


I'm sure to a point that materialists are right when they say that religion has been here to control people. But any system of belief can control people if it's allowed the means to do so. That is why i try to follow the evidence, instead of a system of belief that i know will possibly either brainwash me or control me. This song that i am going to end this post with is called " The riddle you and i" by Five for fighting. I thought you find it uplifting and gives you reason to open your mind and see reality as marvelous and that their truly is a reason and purpose for why we are all here.

Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live

Here is an interesting link to an article called "Darwinism must die so evolution can live". Of course the article has gotten many supporters of darwinism in utter anger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

Biologists take evolution beyond Darwin

Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, evolution has been widely accepted by scientists -- and, except for a few religious dogmatic types, the public -- as the blueprint for the engine of life. But not every scientist thinks that evolution as it's now understood and applied is complete. They want to scale it up to the level of populations, even whole ecosystems. Moreover, they say evolution is intertwined with other dynamics that science is just starting to understand. "The process of evolution is fundamental to the universe. Biology is the most obvious manifestation of it," said Carl Woese, a legendary microbiologist and one of the first proponents of this newly revised evolutionary framework. Darwin described how changes in an organism are passed from generation to generation, dwindling or spreading through populations depending on their contribution to survival. Biologists later combined this with genetics, which had yet to be discovered in Darwin's time. The fusion -- called the modern evolutionary synthesis, or neo-Darwinian evolution -- describes evolution as we now know it: Genetic mutations produce changes that sometimes become part of a species' heritage and, when enough changes accumulate, produce new species. But to Woese and others, change and selection need to be studied at other levels: A honeybee colony, for example, is as much an individual as a single bee. And when explaining how interacting units -- bees, or bacteria, or cells -- produce the qualities of the whole, change and selection alone might not suffice.

What's needed is an understanding of the dynamics of complexity. "There's nothing wrong with neo-Darwinian evolution in its own right," Woese said, "but it's not large enough to encompass what we know now." Woese's specialty is bacteria, and he's not afraid of bold theories that turn conventional scientific wisdom on its head. In 1977, he and colleague George Fox rearranged the animal kingdom from five branches into three, two of which comprise microbes