Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Friday, March 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1349
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:22:37 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
>
>Pim, refering to genetic code arising from natural interactions:
>
>>Of course there are two problems here 1) are these interactions >random
>
>There could have been a chemical tendancy in the codons to be attracted to
>certain amino acids....
>
No, there is no such chemical tendency; at least, it has never been
observed.
>
>...and/or the protein interface between those amino acids
>and tRNA. Has this been shown?
>
What do you mean by "protein interface"? There is no proteinaceous material
present in the tRNA-amino acid complex.
>
>Pim:
>
>>The data suggest that this might not be correct. Abiogenesis had only a
>>0.5 billion years to happen.
>
>This is not a very sound conclusion. Let me use an analogy here.
>
>Lets say Bob, who lives in San Francisco, is visiting me in Portland. He
>forgot to say what mode of transportation he would be using, but I know
that
>he left 2 1/2 hours ago. Seeing him drive up, I comment that driving here
>would have taken him 12 hours. To which you reply: The data suggests that
>this might not be correct. Bob had only 2 1/2 hours to drive here.
>
Unless you left out some details, by your own admission your friend arrived
2.5 hours after he left, therefore Pim's comment is quite accurate. You may
assume that it would take 12 hours to drive from San Francisco to Poland,
but if your friend actiually did it in 2.5 hours your assumption is
irrelevant.
>
>Your reasoning is based on the assumption that abiogenesis is fact. It is
>not. It is a theory.
>
Actually, it is a fact, because we can reproduce it in the laboratory.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 09:21:21 -0800
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
>
>What do you mean by "protein interface"? There is no proteinaceous
material
>present in the tRNA-amino acid complex.
>
I'm sorry for my mistake. Is there anything which connects tRNA to the
amino acid?
>Unless you left out some details, by your own admission your friend arrived
>2.5 hours after he left, therefore Pim's comment is quite accurate. You
may
>assume that it would take 12 hours to drive from San Francisco to Poland,
>but if your friend actiually did it in 2.5 hours your assumption is
>irrelevant.
>
Yes, he drove up, but there is another explanation. Bob flew here, and took
a rental. There is no way in today's world he could have driven here in the
alloted time, unless you want to stipulate a special exclusion.
>>
>>Your reasoning is based on the assumption that abiogenesis is fact. It is
>>not. It is a theory.
>>
>
>Actually, it is a fact, because we can reproduce it in the laboratory.
>
The formation of RNA and other replicating molecules in the laboratory does
not constitute abiogenesis. It is fascenating and it is one step closer.
If what has occured in the laboratory is what you claim took 500 million
years, then I concede.
Let me say here, that I am not opposed to naturalistic abiogenesis as a
theory, but then neither am I disposed towards it. Whatever the answer may
be, as to how life arose on this planet, it will be supremely interesting.
Thanks,
Ami Chopine
amka@vcode.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 17:41:50 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
Kevin O'Brien made this memorable comment on Thu, 18 Mar 1999 in
response to a statement originating from Ami:
> >Your reasoning is based on the assumption that abiogenesis is fact. It is
> >not. It is a theory.
> >
>
> Actually, it is a fact, because we can reproduce it in the laboratory.
I will predict that in 10 years from now, origin-of-life researchers
will still be seeking the elusive secret of the chemical origin of
life. If I am right, I will ask Kevin to review his "Actually"
statement and ask himself what factors led him to make such a bold,
confident and erroneous pronouncement. In the meantime, I will
record his words in my "quotebook" - I'm sure I'll find suitable
occasions to make use of them.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 13:08:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Rich Daniel <rwdaniel@dnaco.net>
Subject: Crick & extraterrestrial origins
Tim Ikeda wrote:
> ...Crick in particular is noted for breaking away from
> the more commonly held suspicion that life originated on earth....
When was the last time Crick voiced his disagreement with an earthly
abiogenesis? _Life Itself_ was published in 1981; there's been a lot
of work done since then that I'd think would have caused him to
modify his position.
Rich Daniel rwdaniel@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 10:55:10 -0800
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: Re: IC (Challenge)
>Here's a puzzle for ID supporters: can you solve it? Proteins contain
>functional domains that must interact with each other in order for the
>protein molecule to function properly. Remove even one domain and the
>protein effectively looses its function. Would this mean that, generally
>speaking, proteins are IC? If not, why not?
They are, indeed, an example of IC.
>
>Recently, however, the technology has now made it possible for biochemists
>and molecular biologists to take different functional domains from
different
>proteins, combine them, and get functional proteins
Is this supposed to be an argument against intellegent design?
>
>The puzzle then is this: assuming that this proteinaceous chimera is IC,
>how can you get an IC structure by assembling random non-functional parts?
Were they random? And if random, did you have a particular function in mind
for the molecule produced within an intellgently designed enviroment?
This is an old argument: "See, the floor can become the base of the
moustrap." Something else can substitute for a part, but that something
else performs the same function as the substituted part.
Not only that, someone with a purpose substitued the floor, or domain, for
the original part.
>Or put another way, how can a functional structure that looses its function
>when even one piece is removed be made out of a random assortment of
>non-functional pieces that were never "designed" to work together in the
>first place, assuming that IC is a real concept?
In this marvelous technology you described, you described design in the very
nature of the experiment. Please give us more details to support your
assertion that this experiment, or groups of experiments, had as part of
their design, total randomness in how the molecules were rebuilt.
snip analogous argument with same question. Was it truly random, or did our
inherently intellegent behaviors affect the system?
Thanks,
Ami Chopine
amka@vcode.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:20:07 +0000
From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Greetings Jonathan:
Thanks for writing.Let me respond publicly to the comments in your
earlier email:
> Your response to Kevin clearly illustrates that the issues to you are > not scientific, but a
nexus of metaphysical, theological and
> philosophical. I would agree with this analysis, which is why I think
> it is pointless discussing the scientific evidence for, or objects to
> any evolutionary theory when the real reasons you, or someone else for
> that matter, object to it, are on another plane entirely.
You are not entirely correct here. I had no intention of excluding
science from your list - but it has to be a science according to its
finest traditions. I don't believe evolution qualifies, (a) because its
standing depends more on the subjective opinions of its adherents than
on any hard evidence and, (b) because it is more speculation than true
science.
> >
> > Evolution is "the cumulative change in the characteristics of
> > populations of organisms over succeeding generations, resulting in
> > species totally different from remote ancestors (Chambers) - whether
> > by chance, or by divine intent."
>
> Your definition acknowledges the possibility that God is sovereign in
> evolution. So what is the problem?
>
One obvious problem concerns the order of creation given in Genesis 1,
where we read that birds were created before land animals. Unless you
can suggest an appropriate evolutionary scenario to meet this
requirement, we have to conclude that an evolutionary-minded God has
contradicted himself in the opening words of his Book.
> > (2) In attacking the early chapters of Genesis (which Jesus
> > obviously believed), it raises questions about the Lord's ministry
> > and directly challenges the Bible's claim to be a work of God -
> > specifically intended to instruct man in ways that are righteous and
> > acceptable to Him. (2Tm.3:16,17).
>
> Evolutionary theory only challenges some readings of Genesis, not all.
> In the same way it only challenges the attempts of those to make it
> authoritative in ways it was never intended to be. How does it
> question our Lord's ministry? I this claim is often made, but I have
> never seen it adequately substantiated.
I think it more reasonable to believe that when God inspired men to
write those books which we now find incorporated in The Bible, he meant
what he said! Why, on the basis of a theory for which no hard evidence
exists, are you able to conclude that God's word was never intended to
be authoritative? What reason - apart from your personal faith in
evolution - can you possibly have for saying that?! How can you risk
preferring the opinions of men to the words of the Living God?
You ask how the theory calls our Lord's ministry into question. In his
view, what we now refer to as the Pentateuch, or Torah, was absolutely
foundational to it, as, for example, Lk.16:19-31) makes clear.
> > (3) (Evolution's)social consequences are invariably bad. This
> > observation should put us in mind of our Lord's warning, "...by
> > their fruits ye shall know them...
> Four things here. First only some of social consequences of
> evolutionary theory are bad, not all. Presumably you would regard the > need for careful use of
pesticides and antibiotics that evolutionary
> theory highlights as desirable.
Are you saying that these things would never have seen the light of day
were it not for evolution?
> Second, the ideologies which have resulted in "some of the worst
> excesses" (militarism, nazism, communism, unrestrained capitalism,
> etc.) are not contingent on evolution. All either predated it or an
> antecedents that predate evolutionary theory. I think it was Bertrand
> Russell who said something to the effect that "Darwin had the
> misfortune of serving everyone who had an axe to grind".
Anti-God and anti-biblical views in were, of course, in existence long
before Darwin (as Henry Morris points out in 'The Long War Against
God'). However, there can be no denying that both Marx and Hitler were
particularly inspired by Darwinian ideas
..
> Third, just because a theory can be misused says nothing about
> its truth or falsity.
But, describing his creation as 'good' surely seems rather odd if
evolution were really the means!
> Fourth, you seem to be confusing levels of knowledge here,the
> scientific theory of organic evolution with the philosophy of
> accidentialism, which operates on a different level plan. It is
> important not to make category errors when thinking about these
> issues.
I believe I see the issues in our discussion very clearly. As I have
argued elsewhere, evolution at root is unfalsifiable and hence,
unscientific. It exists as a device whose prime purpose is that of
reducing the standing of God in the eyes of those created in his image.
Sincerely,
Vernon
Vernon Jenkins
[Musician, Mining Engineer, and Senior Lecturer in Maths and Computing,
the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan), 1954-87]
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 19:48:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Susan B <susan-brassfield@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Jonathan wrote:
>> Four things here. First only some of social consequences of
>> evolutionary theory are bad, not all. Presumably you would regard the >
need for careful use of pesticides and antibiotics that evolutionary
>> theory highlights as desirable.
Vernon wrote:
>Are you saying that these things would never have seen the light of day
>were it not for evolution?
Susan wrote:
no, I think Jonathan is saying that these things are dangerous to use
without knowledge of evolution and natural selection.
>Anti-God and anti-biblical views in were, of course, in existence long
>before Darwin (as Henry Morris points out in 'The Long War Against
>God'). However, there can be no denying that both Marx and Hitler were
>particularly inspired by Darwinian ideas
they were inspired by *what they thought* were Darwinian ideas.
..
>> Third, just because a theory can be misused says nothing about
>> its truth or falsity.
>
>But, describing his creation as 'good' surely seems rather odd if
>evolution were really the means!
there's nothing bad in changing to meet the needs of a changing environment.
There is no blame in failing to do so and going extinct. After all, all
creatures die.
>I believe I see the issues in our discussion very clearly. As I have
>argued elsewhere, evolution at root is unfalsifiable and hence,
>unscientific. It exists as a device whose prime purpose is that of
>reducing the standing of God in the eyes of those created in his image.
How can it do that? How is that necessary? Especially when you realize that
the rhythms of nature inspire reverence in the people who observe it. And
for those that believe in God, it inspires worship the author of nature.
Susan
- --------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:34:29 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
Since each of you have made essentially the same objection, permit me to
respond to everyone together.
Ami Chopine wrote: "The formation of RNA and other replicating molecules in
the laboratory does not constitute abiogenesis."
Actually, it does (I'll explain below after I address David's comments).
David J. Tyler wrote: "I will predict that in 10 years from now,
origin-of-life researchers will still be seeking the elusive secret of the
chemical origin of life. If I am right, I will ask Kevin to review his
'Actually' statement and ask himself what factors led him to make such a
bold, confident and erroneous pronouncement. In the meantime, I will record
his words in my 'quotebook' - I'm sure I'll find suitable occasions to make
use of them."
I am flattered, but if you do not include the following exposition you will
be guilty of quoting out of context (not that I expect you to be bothered by
that).
You obviously define abiogenesis as "the origin of life", but you do not
define life. I suspect that if you did it would involve some kind of
vitalistic nonsense about how "life" is some mystical quality that sets a
living cell apart from a test tube containing chemicals, or some such
schlock. In any event, that's why you have such a serious misconception
about this topic.
The vast majority of biologists/biochemists "define" life as an organized,
integrated metabolic system that uses certain polymeric catalysts to break
down certain biomolecules to obtain the raw energy and materials needed for
other polymeric catalysts to build up biomolecules needed by the organism.
This is a working definition as opposed to some set "official" definition
that can cover all cases, but it is no less rigorous. As such, when a
biologist/biochemist speaks of abiogenesis being the "origin of life", he
means that it is the creation of biomolecules and the metabolic systems they
support by non-biological methods. In other words, biochemically speaking,
there is no difference between "life" and the biomolecules/metabolic systems
that make life possible.
As such, the Miller-Urey experiment, Fox's proteinoids and the formation of
RNA and other replicating molecules, to name a few, are all examples of
abiogenesis. And since these have all been laboratory experiments,
abiogenesis is a fact that can be replicated in any modern laboratory.
And David's prediction has already been proven false.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:35:31 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Auld lang syne, perhaps
>
>> Andrew? Is that you? The completely groundless, but sweeping,
>> claims made concerning the integrity of others fits my
>> recollection pretty well.
>>
>> Wesley
>
>Yes, it's me. And, I'm still waiting for an emperical example of an
>indefinite increase of complexity in a closed system (evolution).
>
I realize that I am baiting a rabid bear here, but....
First of all, evolution does not work in a closed system; evolution works in
open systems.
Secondly, evolution is actually defined as the change in the frequency of
one or more genes within a population of organisms. Read any textbook by
Douglas Futuyma for the empirical evidence of this that you seek.
No doubt you will maintain that only macroevolution is truely evolution in
the sense you mean it. There too Futuyma can provide the empirical evidence
you seek.
Enjoy.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:37:29 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
>At 08:52 PM 3/17/99 -0800, Pim wrote:
>
>> How often do I have to post the reference ?
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/
>
>Until there is empirical evidence to support the theorizing.
>
I think you mean speculation here. If as you imply there is no evidence to
support Keith Robinson's concept, then he is engaging in speculation. He
can theorize only if he has evidence to support his concept already.
In any event, Keith's concept is that IC systems can evolve by the
duplication of specific genes and then their subsequent divergence by
mutation. This concept is actually well documented.
Go to the Entrez MedLine journal search site at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Entrez/medline.html
Change the Search Field to "Text Word", then type "gene" into the search
text box and hit the Search button. Then, without changing the Search
Field, type "duplication" into the search text box under the "Add Term(s) to
Query" section and again hit the Search button. This time type in
"divergence" and search again. You should then get 456 articles detailing
research into evolution by gene duplication and subsequent divergence.
Enjoy.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:44:39 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
>
>>
>>What do you mean by "protein interface"? There is no proteinaceous
>>material present in the tRNA-amino acid complex.
>>
>
>I'm sorry for my mistake. Is there anything which connects tRNA to the
>amino acid?
>
Yes, there are, and I suspected that they are what you meant. They are
enzymes called aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. They catalyze the reaction that
binds an amino acid to a tRNA; they also make sure that the correct amino
acid is matched to the correct tRNA. Though mismatches can occur (maybe one
time out of 100,000 or less), which can lead to point mutations in the
resulting protein, for the most part the specificity between enzyme, tRNA
and amino acid is excellent. Once the aminoacyl tRNA (tRNA-amino acid
complex) is formed, however, the synthetase plays no further role.
>
>>Unless you left out some details, by your own admission your friend
>>arrived
>>2.5 hours after he left, therefore Pim's comment is quite accurate. You
>>may
>>assume that it would take 12 hours to drive from San Francisco to Poland,
>>but if your friend actiually did it in 2.5 hours your assumption is
>>irrelevant.
>
>Yes, he drove up, but there is another explanation. Bob flew here, and
>took
>a rental. There is no way in today's world he could have driven here in
>the alloted time, unless you want to stipulate a special exclusion.
>
OK, I see what you're saying; I had confused myself. However, your analogy
is flawed. Your said it would take longer than 500 million years to evolve
a single celled organism from simple chemicals. Pim said that the data
suggests you are wrong, then added that abiogenesis only had 500 million
years to work. Your analogy is meant to respond by saying that unless we
know what the mechanism for abiogenesis was, we cannot know how long it
would have taken.
But in fact your analogy does not really support your original claim. We
know exactly how long it took your friend to reach you -- 2.5 hours. We
know (or at least can hypothesize about) what modes of transportation were
available to him. We can thus use his travel time, plus the geography
between San Francisco and Poland, to determine which are the most likely
modes he could have taken. (In this case, flying is the only mode that
could work.)
Similarly we know that the first living organisms appeared roughly 500
million years after the earth first solidified. We also know (or can
hypothesize about) what mechanisms were available at that time. We can then
use the time constraint, as well as our knowledge of environmental
conditions back then, to help us determine which mechanisms would have been
the most successful. That gives us about a dozen viable mechanisms that,
working simultaneously or sequentially, could have evolved unicellular
organisms from simple chemicals. In fact, some of these mechanisms could
have accomplished some of the earlier steps in only a few million years.
>
>If what has occured in the laboratory is what you claim took 500 million
>years, then I concede.
>
The mechanisms studied in laboratory research in fact could conceivably have
produced simple unicellular organisms within 500 million years.
>
>Let me say here, that I am not opposed to naturalistic abiogenesis as a
>theory, but then neither am I disposed towards it. Whatever the answer may
>be, as to how life arose on this planet, it will be supremely interesting.
>
On that we can agree wholeheartedly.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 21:41:37 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: IC (Challenge)
>
>>Here's a puzzle for ID supporters: can you solve it? Proteins contain
>>functional domains that must interact with each other in order for the
>>protein molecule to function properly. Remove even one domain and the
>>protein effectively looses its function. Would this mean that, generally
>>speaking, proteins are IC? If not, why not?
>
>They are, indeed, an example of IC.
>
>>
>>Recently, however, the technology has now made it possible for biochemists
>>and molecular biologists to take different functional domains from
>>different proteins, combine them, and get functional proteins....
>
>Is this supposed to be an argument against intellegent design?
>
No, because the fact that these proteins are created using biotechnology has
no bearing on whether a chimeric protein would be expected to be functional.
>
>>
>>The puzzle then is this: assuming that this proteinaceous chimera is IC,
>>how can you get an IC structure by assembling random non-functional parts?
>
>Were they random?
>
Yes. The basic techniques of the technology are by nature random; that
cannot be changed even if we wanted to change it.
>
>And if random, did you have a particular function in mind
>for the molecule produced within an intellgently designed enviroment?
>
No, and the molecule was not intelligently designed either. Random pieces
were randomly associated; they were not chosen for their function, nor were
they deliberately spliced together in any specific order. There was no
intelligent control over which pieces were recombined, or in what order they
were recombined, or in how they would interact if at all. The fact that
this is being done in a laboratory using biotechnology and not in a pond by
bacteria is irrelevant to the results.
>
>This is an old argument: "See, the floor can become the base of the
>moustrap." Something else can substitute for a part, but that something
>else performs the same function as the substituted part.
>
Except that with this technique you can be pretty sure that in most cases
the random piece DOES NOT perform the same function as the substituted part.
Yet you still get a functional protein in the end.
Remember, these parts are called **functional** domains. Proteins function
because their functional domains work cooperatively together. That's why
proteins loose their function even if just one domain is removed. For the
vast majority of simple proteins that perform a single function, the domains
of any one such protein do not differ radically in function from one
another. However, two proteins that perform radically different functions
will possess domains that function radically differently compared to either
protein.
Let's say I have two such radically different proteins: A and Z. The
domains of A all share pretty much the same function, as do all the domains
of Z, but because A and Z have radically different functions, the function
of a domain from A will have a radically different function from a domain in
Z, and vice versa. Let's say that I then remove a domain from A and a
domain from Z, then randomly assemble them together with domains from other
proteins. If all of these domains perform a radically different function
from all the rest, then you would not expect any of them to serve as
substitute parts with identical functions, as you suggest above, yet when
all is said and done, there is a good chance that the resulting protein will
have some kind of function. How can you explain this in light of IC?
>
>Not only that, someone with a purpose substitued the floor, or domain, for
>the original part.
>
If the process is truly random, which it is, there can in fact be no
guarantee that the domain will perform the same function as the original
part, and there is certainly no intelligence directing the placement the new
domain.
>
>>Or put another way, how can a functional structure that looses its
function
>>when even one piece is removed be made out of a random assortment of
>>non-functional pieces that were never "designed" to work together in the
>>first place, assuming that IC is a real concept?
>
>In this marvelous technology you described, you described design in the
very
>nature of the experiment.
>
But this design cannot influence the results. No one can use this technique
to purposely design a protein with a specific function. In fact you get
better results if you AVOID trying to design a protein with a specific
function.
>
>Please give us more details to support your
>assertion that this experiment, or groups of experiments, had as part of
>their design, total randomness in how the molecules were rebuilt.
>
Fair enough. Better fasten your seat belt though; it's going to be a bumpy
ride.
First, select twelve simple proteins with functions as different as
possible. Then isolate their genes. Genes are made up of coding regions --
called exons -- divided by non-coding regions -- called introns. Each exon
codes for one functional domain. Using special enzymes, cut the genes up at
the introns so as to separate the complete exons. Add special sequences to
either end of each exon to make them "sticky" so that the exons will
recombine, then mix all the exons from all the genes together and allow them
to recombine. If the exons are thoroughly mixed, they will recombine
randomly, forming a wide variety of new "genes" of varying lengths and
varying compositions of exons in varying sequences. This technique is
called a chimeric library.
Separate the recombined exons on the basis of size, then use a technique
called PCR to create more copies of each recombination. Insert the
recombinations into circular pieces of DNA called plasmids, then insert the
plasmids into bacteria. The bacteria will make multiple copies of each
plasmid, but will also express the recombinations by making proteins from
them. Isolate these proteins and test them for activity.
Nothing could be simpler. Want to try it yourself?
>
>snip analogous argument with same question. Was it truly random, or did
our
>inherently intellegent behaviors affect the system?
>
I hope you're not suggesting that a scientist can, through sheer force of
will, force a random process to produce a specific, non-random result. The
only part that design actually plays in this process involves the bringing
together of certain random natural processes in a specific order, but the
randomness of the processes themselves insure that this kind of design
cannot influence the results.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:43:37 -0800
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: Re: IC (Challenge)
>
>Nothing could be simpler. Want to try it yourself?
>
Cooooool. Yes, I want to play with toys like that. Wow, the things you
could do! The process you described includes the ability to reproduce a
specific new protein that had been created. So, if you get a really
interesting one, you can produce enough to really study its function. (Uhm,
provided you have the funding, etc) Cooool. I also see applications for use
in the medical field in searching for new treatments.
I am still thinking about these proteins in relation to IC. Something
doesn't quite fit with what I understand the definition of IC is. I'll get
back to you in a couple of days when it has stewed enough.
Thank you very much for a fascenating description,
Ami Chopine
amka@vcode.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:12:12 -0800
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
I suspect that if you did it would involve some kind of
>vitalistic nonsense about how "life" is some mystical quality that sets a
>living cell apart from a test tube containing chemicals, or some such
>schlock.
Actually, no...I think I have a very applicable working defintion which can
easily be applied and even must be applied to get from "simple chemicals" to
a "living cell" as it is expressed on earth and has been for the last 4
billion years. It requires a dynamic information system. The genetic code
and it's necessary machinery.
Now, for abiogenesis to be a fact, in my book, a "genetic code" (it doesn't
have to be the one in use currently (with some minor variations) in every
living thing on earth) must be observed to emerge without design from
whatever biochemical soup is thought up for such an experiment. It must
also have the ability to express itself.
Thanks,
Ami Chopine
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1349
********************************