Mind blowing presentation by George Church at the NIH

Last week, George Church talked at the school where I take part-time evening classes. I provide a link to that talk. He talked about re-engineered codons (something I’m grateful to Rumraket for introducing me to), stem cell research, human animal chimeras, aging therapies, human genome re-engineering, and just a little bit about ENCODE. Though I have ethical concerns about human/animal chimeras, and human genome re-engineering (like what happens if you mess up), Church goes into the technologies and raises questions as to what our world may look like in the not too distant future. Not that I’m trying to make a point about ID or God by linking this video, but it shows how rapidly we may be forced to deal with certain issues.

I personally don’t have too much problem with GMO foods. After all, my YEC friend John Sanford created the gene gun through which a large fraction of genetically engineered crops on the planet were made at one time. But one thing that bothers me is genetically engineered bacteria. Church discussed super bacteria created for research applications. I can imagine an accident where germs are created accidentally that become really hard to kill and we basically have an apocalypse. Maybe that will be the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, “there will be famines and pestilence”.

Here is the video (with Francis Collins speaking at the start):
https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=21803&bhcp=1

Here is a description of the talk:

The future of genetic codes and BRAIN codes

Dr. Church’s lecture will focus on transformative technologies moving at exponential rates for reading, writing and editing genomes, epigenomes, and other omes. Applications include cells resistant to all viruses via new genetic codes, production and analysis of organs for transplantation, and therapy testing.

https://faes.org/events/wednesday-afternoon-lecture-series-wals-future-genetic-codes-and-brain-codes

Church, by the way, gave a nice comment about Stephen Meyer’s book:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/george_church_p072741.html

26 thoughts on “Mind blowing presentation by George Church at the NIH

  1. I don’t mean to alarm you, but some natural process has been engineering resistant bacteria already since we started using antibiotics. I can’t quite recall what this process is called, maybe someone here knows…

  2. david:
    I don’t mean to alarm you, but some natural process has been engineering resistant bacteria already since we started using antibiotics. I can’t quite recall what this process is called, maybe someone here knows…

    Question-begging- how did you determine that a natural process did it?

  3. Well, that was a rambling post. Let me hit two bits that struck me.

    I personally don’t have too much problem with GMO foods. After all, my YEC friend John Sanford created the gene gun through which a large fraction of genetically engineered crops on the planet were made at one time.

    Why should the fact that a YEC had something to do with it cause you not to have a problem with GMO foods? That seems like a very primitive tribal attitude.

    Church, by the way, gave a nice comment about Stephen Meyer’s book

    So? Why should anyone care? Are you so desperate for any scrap of validation? And anyway, it’s a quite vague and noncommittal “endorsement”.

  4. I don’t mean to alarm you, but some natural process has been engineering resistant bacteria already since we started using antibiotics. I can’t quite recall what this process is called, maybe someone here knows…

    Loss-of-function and plasmid exchange in evolution of antibiotic resistance is nothing like creating alternate genetic codes and BRAIN codes like Church did through intelligent design.

  5. John,

    The OP was to introduce Church’s lecture. If you don’t want to learn some science from it, that’s up to you, but it seemed it was worth the time for real scientists to pack the auditorium out to hear Church.

    Criticize what I said, but you could actually comment on what Church had to say as it does have some bearing on OOL and genomic function discussions.

  6. I think the closest the ID movement has ever come to respectability is when George Church wrote a positive blurb for Meyer’s book Darwins Doubt

  7. REW:
    I think the closest the ID movement has ever come to respectability is when George Church wrote a positive blurb for Meyer’s book Darwins Doubt

    That’s your opinion. However if we actually compare the two- ID vs evolutionism- we can see which has the science- ID- and which has the BS- evolutionism.

  8. stcordova:
    The OP was to introduce Church’s lecture.If you don’t want to learn some science from it, that’s up to you, but it seemed it was worth the time for real scientists to pack the auditorium out to hear Church.

    Criticize what I said, but you could actually comment on what Church had to say as it does have some bearing on OOL and genomic function discussions.

    My main point was that I don’t think you’re in control of your own statements. Case in pont: you accuse me there of not being a real scientist. Did you intend to? If not, perhaps you should read things over before posting.

    What bearing does what Church said have on OOL and genomic function discussions? Try to make a coherent connection.

    And I notice you made no reply to either of my comments.

  9. Frankie:…if we actually compare the two- ID vs evolutionism- we can see which has the science- ID- and which has the BS- evolutionism.

    Where can we see this comparison?

  10. Alan Fox: Where can we see this comparison?

    Alan, you have already proven that your position has nothing. And I have already demonstrated that ID has something

  11. Frankie: However if we actually compare the two- ID vs evolutionism- we can see which has the science- ID- and which has the BS- evolutionism.

    “Where can we see this comparison?” was my question to Frankie’s claim above.

    Frankie responds:

    Alan, you have already proven that your position has nothing. And I have already demonstrated that ID has something.

    Which provides no answer but invites more questions. Where have you already demonstrated that “ID has something”? And what’s the something?

  12. Mung:
    Alan seems to accept that evolutionism has nothing.

    Strictly speaking that’s true. “Evolutionism” is an abstract concept.

  13. Alan Fox: “Where can we see this comparison?” was my question to Frankie’s claim above.

    Frankie responds:

    Which provides no answer but invites more questions. Where have you already demonstrated that “ID has something”? And what’s the something?

    For a view at what your position has just visit my latest thread. And for a quick view of what ID has take a look at my thread Testing Intelligent Design. Then compare

    It seems that the “best” your position has is some arbitrary and baseless definition that says biological processes are natural, which is supposed to mean blind and mindless. Unfortunately that doesn’t help as no one can show that biological processes produced ATP synthase or the genetic code.

  14. Alan Fox: Strictly speaking that’s true. “Evolutionism” is an abstract concept.

    Evolutionism is the label for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

  15. Frankie: Evolutionism is the label for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Evolutionism is a philosophy , it is a label for the mechanisms of evolution only by you

    Don’t forget carpenterism, electricianism, plumbingism

  16. newton: Evolutionism is a philosophy , it is a label for the mechanisms of evolution only by you

    Don’t forget carpenterism, electricianism, plumbingism

    Toaster repairism.

  17. I personally don’t have too much problem with GMO foods.
    Wait until you get a GMO kid -this is how some of the people I know call kids with autism.

    Look up something like ‘..Somalian kids autism rates skyrocket in north-america and Sweden …”

    BTW: While you are at it find out why Amish kids almost don’t get autism at all and their women don’t get breast cancer…
    They do get problems with mixing up with close relatives but that is not related to the above.

  18. david:
    I don’t mean to alarm you, but some natural process has been engineering resistant bacteria already since we started using antibiotics. I can’t quite recall what this process is called, maybe someone here knows…

    The question most people miss is whether evolution is haphazard or information-based. If evolution is based on partially-directed mutations, then that is Intelligent Design, as it shows information as a pre-requisite for evolution, which is entirely what ID has been saying for the last several decades. In fact, it is the tagline of the Dembski/Marks Evolutionary Informatics lab: “Investigating how information makes evolution possible”.

    Sal – I tried to look at the video but it didn’t show on my computer.

  19. johnnyb,

    Sal – I tried to look at the video but it didn’t show on my computer.

    When I watched it it ran some kind of browser test before actually playing the video. Perhaps your browser doesn’t pass.

    (I’m using the latest 64-bit Chrome on Win 10.)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.