RE: Scientists look for molecular 'meaning of life'
John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:24:08 -0600> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_556000/556984.stm
>
> >By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse
>
> >Scientists are close to finding the essence of life - at least
> on a genetic
> >level - and it comes down to about 300 genes.
>
> But keep in mind that they exclude from the list of 300 genes all
> the various genes typically needed to synthesize amino acids,
> nucleotides, vitamins, etc. because such nutrients are supplied
> directly to the little critters by the researchers. And as far
> as I know,
> it takes a few genes to order these goodies from Sigma.
>
> Of course, the media puts a sensational spin on this - "scientists
> creating life from scratch." Uh, no. When you paste together 300 or
> so genes supplied to you by Nature, this is not "scratch."
>
> Mike
>
Very good points.
To go one further, I could easily see some IDers and Progressive
Creationists using this as an argument in their favor: this is the minimum
required for life and hence for evolution, so this must be the starting
point. Yet there is no plausible natural explanation for this putatively
pre-evolutionary initial batch of 300 genes. Therefore....
I think that is/will be an intriguing argument, but presumably no
evolutionist will concede (let alone assert) that there was no evolution
before (if ever) this sort of critter was around. Cf. Kevin's/Fox's ideas,
e.g.
John