[_ Old Earth _] sythentic life and the attempt by science to prove toe

[jasoncran]

http://news.ufl.edu/2004/02/20/artificialdna/

its an older article but its being sought after. the current deal isnt being told that it supports evoltion yet this uf does say that idea is to be artificial means of making dna, use it to support evolution.

i am curious how that will support evolution.

 

[Pard]

I never really understood what you guys meant about toes... I got ten of them... how about you?

 

[jasoncran]

I never really understood what you guys meant about toes... I got ten of them... how about you?

yes i have ten.
abbreivation
the theory of evolution.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Let me state what I said in another topic for everyone else who is interested. The initial creation of a synthetic cell isn't evolution, if however the cell were to reproduce in some manner and have some form of genetic change through the generations, then yes, that would be what evolution describes.

The article states:

The artificial DNA-like molecule directed the synthesis of copies of itself and then copies of the copies, mimicking the natural process of evolution

Evolution is merely the genetic changes through successive generations. This quote shows that when the cell replicated (reproduced), It mimicked what happens in what we see in the natural world.

Although some scientists do not agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, evolution itself is a fact. We know that genetic change happens through successive generations. The theory of evolution is only an attempt to explain it.

The reason this supports evolution is because this cell is capable of reproducing with heritable changes through generations. But we must remember that this synthetic cell is just as much of a cell as any other non synthetic cell is. It's not a robot or anything like that.

 

[jasoncran]

but to make it a cell via from something didnt occur naturally doesnt quite help , all you can do is this we see that they are related but how did this occur naturaly.

that is where the ns comes in. the problem here is if we go backwards we need to set the conditions up for the evolution to take place. to see if it happens.


for i think that there are some variables that need to be set and adressed and since we werent there we cant be sure.


it would be like lets see how the first car worked by disassmebling the the latest version and not looking at the materials used then and what the original intent was.

 

[Evointrinsic]

but to make it a cell via from something didnt occur naturally doesnt quite help , all you can do is this we see that they are related but how did this occur naturaly.

I think you need some more punctuation in this. I dont really understand what your trying to get at here.

that is where the ns comes in. the problem here is if we go backwards we need to set the conditions up for the evolution to take place. to see if it happens.

what's ns? we've already set up the conditions for evolution to take place. If life exists, evolution takes place. The synthetic life now exists, and evolution is taking place just as it would with natural life.

for i think that there are some variables that need to be set and adressed and since we werent there we cant be sure.

I assume your talking about when the first cell was created naturally? once again, it doesn't matter how life comes into existence, evolution only describes the phenomenon where genetic changes occur through successive generations. If you accept the evidence of microevolution, then you accept the evidence of evolution. Let's take Genesis literally for a second. Let's say that in the beginning there were two of everything (except for the things that self replicate), male and female. Let's say the first domesticated dog looked like a black lab, just for the sake of explanation. Ok, so now we have a whole bunch of different types of dogs: Big, small, black, white, spotted, mottled, and so on. This is evolution. The theory of evolution is only meant to explain how evolution works. however, evolution is an obvious fact, regardless if you are a Young Earth Creationist or not.

it would be like lets see how the first car worked by disassmebling the the latest version and not looking at the materials used then and what the original intent was.

no, this is not an accurate depiction. the evolution of technology is impeccably different from that of biology. Technology can't die, technology can't reproduce with variation, and technology cannot adapt.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but the conditions for the natural selection arent there in a lab.

unless you are living in a test tube now.

that's my point we dont know the exact natural forces that pressured the single cell or replicated organism.

do we really know the enviroment for the single cell to live in. not really and where it was. and what the earth was like, though its reasonalbe to assume that it was friendly for life,but what of the predators of the first cell?

 

[Evointrinsic]

yes, but the conditions for the natural selection arent there in a lab.

Fortunately, Natural selection isn't the cause for all genetic changes. It can be a large factor in the causes of many successful mutations, but not all.

do we really know the enviroment for the single cell to live in. not really and where it was. and what the earth was like, though its reasonalbe to assume that it was friendly for life,but what of the predators of the first cell?

It doesn't matter what environment a single celled organism lives in for evolution to occur through successive generations. All that matters is that the organism is alive and reproducing with variation. those are the only aspects of the equation that we need. This all means that evolution does not need to have predators in the equation as well.

It seems your stuck mainly on how the first cell developed, rather than how evolution is intrinsically involved with life.

I can explain through PM's if you'd like, however?

 

[jasoncran]

lol, evolution doesnt need natural process then by that statement.
the mutations always always add information i guess. that is something to see if that does happen. create a single cell allow no natural forces to act on it, and see what comes to be.

of course that cant be done as there has to some enviroment but you could just minimise intervention when the cells die out and other come in.

 

[Evointrinsic]

lol, evolution doesnt need natural process then by that statement.
the mutations always always add information i guess. that is something to see if that does happen. create a single cell allow no natural forces to act on it, and see what comes to be.

I never said it doesn't need a natural process. of course it does, that wouldn't make sense. However, I did say that Natural selection isn't always necessary for there to be genetic change. There's quite a bit of a difference. I have no Idea how you got "mutations always add information" out of that. Perhaps in this incident yes, but always? just how much of any thread comments from people who support evolution do you read?

If you consider reproduction a natural force, then I would agree with you, if there are no natural forces, then nothing will happen unless it's an infection of some sort. But in a sterile environment we can't add that variable. There for, Reproduction is still a natural force that takes place. and reproduction with variation is another natural force that takes place. the only thing not taking place is the effects of the environment from predation or disease or so on. You simply have the inability to grasp these concepts, it would seem.

of course that cant be done as there has to some enviroment but you could just minimise intervention when the cells die out and other come in.

yes, in nature, there is always some sort of environment. In this situation though, the environment is a sterile petri dish. The environment you speak of simply does not exist. regardless of what environment this subject is in, it is still presenting mutations through successive generation and that is Evolution.

 

[jasoncran]

then the first life is an engima as we may never know, if you believe the toe. as how can see what the changes were and how it happened. this would shut up us creationist if this was doable.

 

[Evointrinsic]

If you accept the facts of evolution, then it doesn't matter what the first organism was. why is this so difficult to understand? Evolution is the process of genetic changes through successive generations that is it!!!! there is nothing else. it doesnt matter what was first or how it was created. It could be some fecal matter that was dropped off from some ancient alien race for all i care. The fact is, we know that genetic changes occur though successive generations. This is evolution. try to understand.

Actually it is, but you guys tend to simply ignore the evidence.

 

[jasoncran]

If you accept the facts of evolution, then it doesn't matter what the first organism was. why is this so difficult to understand? Evolution is the process of genetic changes through successive generations that is it!!!! there is nothing else. it doesnt matter what was first or how it was created. It could be some fecal matter that was dropped off from some ancient alien race for all i care. The fact is, we know that genetic changes occur though successive generations. This is evolution. try to understand.

Actually it is, but you guys tend to simply ignore the evidence.

YES I DO UNDERSTAND, BUT IF WE KNOW WHAT THE DNA WAS AND HOW IT WAS DONE WE KNOW THAT THOSE ANNOYING TRANSITIONAL MAY BE SEEN .NOT DEPICTED IN THOSE NICE CUTE PICS AND GUESSES.

BTW WHY EVEN LOOK THEN AT SYNTHETIC AS A VIABLES MEANS.

 

[Evointrinsic]

You need to use more punctuation, because the only guesses I'm making right now are the ones that try to figure out what your saying.

From what I can make of it your looking not for this...

But for this?

Jason, I, and many others, have told you plenty of times that we do not need a complete, generation to generation, fossil record to identify what were the ancestors of what.

Here's a quote from a valuable source:

There are no transitional fossils

There isn't a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count - trillions if you include microfossils. These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians, for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions.html

What you don't seem to understand is that those drawings aren't "guesses" They are based off of fossil findings.

A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another. They don't even have to be fossils: many living lineages have transitional features.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html

Perhaps the most complete set of transitional fossils is the so-called "fishibian" (you know, the first picture i posted) sequence showing the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the Devonian period (see Illustration). The first of these to be discovered was Ichthyostega, in 1932, though it was not properly described until 1996. Its limbs and skull were amphibian-like, but it had a fish-like tail and gill coverings, as well as a classic fish characteristic: a lateral-line sensory system for detecting currents in water. Since then an incredible array of fishibians has been found spanning the entire transition, from the distinctly fish-like Eusthenopteron to the four-legged amphibian Hynerpeton.

The latest fishibian is Tiktaalik from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic (New Scientist, 9 September 2006, p 35). It had fish-like scales, jaws and palate, but - like amphibians - it had a mobile neck and head, an ear capable of hearing in air, and bones in the fins that were intermediate between those of fish and Acanthostega. The fossil record of the fish-to-amphibian transition is now among the best documented of all.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html?page=2

As for your last part...

BTW WHY EVEN LOOK THEN AT SYNTHETIC AS A VIABLES MEANS.

a viable means for what? the proof of evolution? It's not needed. Evolution is one of the most prominent source of physical evidence within all of science. It is unimaginable how someone could not only not understand it, but not see it. The creation of synthetic life isn't meant to be a "Hey look you creationists! we made life! hahahaha!" no... it is meant as a new way to save lives, to discover even more secrets within a mystifying natural process, and to further other scientific fields in their studies.

 

[jasoncran]

then why the first stament by the university of florida. read the link , to which i though you did.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I did, you have a very poor way to clarify what your talking about and addressing in some cases.

I assume you mean this one:

A team of University of Florida scientists has for the first time developed an artificial chemical system that can mimic the natural evolutionary process living organisms undergo.
http://news.ufl.edu/2004/02/20/artificialdna/

If that's the bit your referring to, than that's simply saying that for the first time we created something that was able to mimic Evolution. Although it's another source for showing how life and evolution are intrinsic, we still already had the proof before. This is just to show a massive advancement in biology, rather than an advancement in proving The Theory of Evolution.

 

[jasoncran]

read on down, theres more to that.

 

[Evointrinsic]

read on down, theres more to that.

I am not psychic, just quote what you are referring to please.

 

[jasoncran]

University of Florida News University of Florida News UF Web with Google UF Phonebook UF Scientists Create The First Artificial System Capable Of Evolution


The announcement, which will appear in this week’s edition of the journal Nucleic Acids Research, provides a key step toward developing an artificial form of life. Scientists have been attempting to get artificial chemical systems that support Darwinian evolution for a decadeâ€



Adding a fifth and sixth nucleotide was not difficult from a chemical perspective. But it was difficult to find a DNA polymerase to accept the unnatural nucleotides, Benner said.

“DNA polymerases have evolved for billions of years to accept the four natural letters in DNA — A, T, C, and G.†Benner said. “Coaxing them to accept two new letters, like K and X, was difficult.â€

Benner turned to a new technology called “protein engineering,†to develop an altered DNA polymerase that would work. Using the changed polymerase, the team was able to “evolve†their artificial DNA through five generations.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Scientists have been attempting to get artificial chemical systems that support Darwinian evolution for a decade

This one is your main issue? It's mainly because this now offers a nice, flexible area to study the evolutionary process of many things, most importantly diseases and viruses. With this synthetic system in place, we'll be able to more accurately and efficiently produce combatants of these viruses. It's not so much to prove evolution, though.

I'm not quite sure why you brought the other few paragraphs in, though? what problems do you have with those?