The Simplest Cell

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Neither did you understand me. There is no common ancestor if someone have to put a gene into an organism. It will only proved common descent if that gene occurs naturally instead of being PUT. It's like saying that all computer virus came from the first computer virus which is a simple computer code made by an computer programmer which evolved by itself into more complicated computer viruses and worms that we see today. And no computer viruses ever evolved by itself, they are all made by humans!

God Bless.

You still didn't answer my question.

[CWH]

You still didn't answer my question.

And all computer viruses of yesterday and today share a common descent call simple computer codes made by humans,

Neither did you understand me. There is no common ancestor if someone have to put a gene into an organism. It will only proved common descent if that gene occurs naturally instead of being PUT. It's like saying that all computer virus came from the first computer virus which is a simple computer code made by an computer programmer which evolved by itself into more complicated computer viruses and worms that we see today. And no computer viruses ever evolved by itself, they are all made by humans! They proved that they come from a common descent call computer codes

.

God Bless.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And all computer viruses of yesterday and today share a common descent call simple computer codes made by humans,

.

God Bless.

You still did not answer my question.

Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

And why do other scientists agree with them?

[David M]

Hi David,

The reason I asked about your opinion of the basic timeline of the history of life on this planet was to find out if we shared any common understanding of science. It is very difficult to discuss science with creationists because they use scientific results inconsistently. When a conclusion suits the creationist argument, they cite it as if it were an indisputable scientific fact. When it contradicts creationism, they simply reject it making up whatever reasons are necessary. This is illogical because the conclusions that they accepted are based on the same set of assumptions that they reject! It is extremely confusing to talk to a creationist because I can never depend upon their acceptance of the facts that they used in coming to their conclusions!

The creationist strategy fails to understand the consilience of science - the unity of scientific knowledge. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which conclusions you accept and which you don't. When you question the dates you are not merely questioning the dates, you are questioning all the assumptions (which are based on the best scientific facts available) that went into making those conclusions. In effect, you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge. The creationist arguments are therefore self-refuting.

Please try to understand what I am getting at. Science is our "window on reality." It seems to me that creationism is like looking through a shattered window. It totally distorts the image:

Attachment 510

When creationists cite scientific results, they are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that the scientist used to come to those results. If they reject any of the assumptions that the scientist made, then they cannot accept the conclusion.

Case in point: The timeline of the history of life on this planet is based on conclusions drawn from physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, geology, evolution, astronomy, and many other disciplines. If you reject those dates, you are bringing into question every fact from all those sciences that confirmed those dates.

If the foundation is destroyed, how can we proceed in this discourse? You can't cite any science because essentially all science contradicts your assumptions about creationism.

All the best,

Richard

Richard
I have not destroyed the foundation and have accepted a much longer time and that the fact that the earth is very old. If the earth is very old then maybe fossils also indicate they ate very old dirt which when absorbed into their systems made them appear older than they were. You say, science makes assumptions and that if I agree with the results, I have to agree with the assumptions. I do not think we have to agree with every assumption precisely when there is disagreement amongst scientists. Changing a few assumptions might lead us to the same conclusions.

Elsewhere you have admitted that the first cell could haved been created. I would have thought that most Evolutionists would not agree with you. You have now put yourself in juxtaposition with Creationists just as I have done the same with Evolutionists to get to some common understanding. Our rational thought might mean that combined we could both be correct. However, to have got to this position, of which we can never be certain, because we were not there at the beginning, we are both having to make assumptions.

I take it you have not abandonned this discussion by what you say in the last sentence and we stay on track to anwering the fundamental questions leading up to establishing that the simplest components of a living cell could have self-formed from molecules. We are trying to establish some evidence.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

You still did not answer my question.

Why did those scientists think their experiment was good evidence for their conclusion?

And why do other scientists agree with them?

You also have not answer my question as to why many evolutionist scientists embrace creationism if the theory of evolution is so good.
The have been brainwashed by the false theiory of evolution.

My analogy of the making of computer virus show that there is no common descent. Imagine if Humans could create a sample DNA by just mixing the proteins that make up DNA we could create millions of new species of plants and animals instantly using the sample DNA and a computer program without the need for common descent or evolution. This is what we see DNAs of different species related to one another which we presumed must have descended from one another.

God Blessings to all.

[CWH]

Here is an article about XNA, the synthetic DNA that could lead to new life forms. The keyword is SYNTHETIC which is man-made and do not occur in nature. This shows that life forms are created by someone or something intelligent by altering the DNAs:

XNA, Synthetic DNA, Could Lead To New Life Forms, Scientists Say
Posted: 04/20/2012 12:33 pm Updated: 04/20/2012 12:33 pm


Synthetic molecules resembling DNA can function and evolve just like the real thing, its developers say.

These new, unnatural building blocks could be more useful than DNA or its closely related biomolecule, RNA, in a variety of medical and biotechnology applications, researchers added. Other investigators noted they could even lead to novel forms of life.

DNA is essentially made of four different kinds of molecules known as nucleic acids, commonly referred to by their initials, A, G, C and T. These run along a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups.

Scientists call their artificial nucleic-acidlike molecules XNA, in which the natural sugar component has been replaced by one of six alternative organic compounds. These XNA molecules all can bind to DNA and RNA.

The researchers also have developed enzymes that can synthesize XNA from a DNA template, plus others that can "reverse transcribe" XNA back into DNA. This means they can store and copy data just as DNA can — the basis of heredity for all life on Earth.

The investigators subjected an XNA molecule to artificial natural selection in the lab by introducing mutations into its genetic code. By allowing the different versions of the molecule to compete against each other for binding to another molecule, the team ended up with a shape that bound tightly and specifically to the target – just as one would expect of DNA under the same conditions. This makes XNA the only known molecules other than DNA and RNA capable of Darwinian evolution.


"Heredity — information storage and propagation — and evolution, two of the hallmarks of life, can be implemented in polymers other than DNA and RNA," researcher Philipp Holliger at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, told InnovationNewsDaily.

One notable property of XNA molecules is they are not biodegradable: They are impervious to natural enzymes that degrade DNA and RNA. As such, they could find use in medical and biotechnology arenas where DNA and RNA could not go.

"People use RNA and DNA for biotechnology, therapeutics, diagnostics and biosensing applications, but these are very fragile in the face of biology — they degrade very rapidly if there's any contact with biological materials," said biochemist Gerald Joyce at the Scripps Research Institute, who did not take part in this work. "As such, chemists have to work to make them resistant to natural enzymes that degrade RNA and DNA, and then you have to worry about losing the good properties of those molecules. These XNAs, however, are resistant from the get-go."

These findings might also shed light on the origins of life — specifically, why DNA and RNA came to dominate Earth.

"It shows that there is no overwhelming functional imperative for life to use DNA and RNA for genetic information storage and propagation. More likely, this choice reflects a 'frozen accident' from the origin of life," Holliger suggested.

The construction of genetic systems based on alternative chemical platforms may ultimately lead to the synthesis of novel forms of life, if researchers can devise a system for XNA to replicate itself just as DNA has, Joyce said. However, he cautioned that synthetic biologists should take care to "not tread into areas that have the potential to harm our biology." For instance, the fact that XNA is not biodegradable suggests that life might not have any easy way of breaking it down.

"Do I think what these researchers have done is dangerous? Absolutely not. Do I think this is going to be dangerous in the near or even medium term? Absolutely not," Joyce said. "Still, are we treading into something risky here? It's synthetic biology, not a natural form of biology. Scientists have to pay attention here."

The scientists detailed their findings in the April 20 issue of the journal Science.

God Bless His Creations.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here is an article about XNA, the synthetic DNA that could lead to new life forms. The keyword is SYNTHETIC which is man-made and do not occur in nature. This shows that life forms are created by someone or something intelligent by altering the DNAs:

Your logic is fallacious. The fact that man can make something does not mean it does not occur in nature. For example, we can create nuclear fusion. By your logic, that would mean that nuclear fusion cannot occur naturally in the sun.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard
I have not destroyed the foundation and have accepted a much longer time and that the fact that the earth is very old. If the earth is very old then maybe fossils also indicate they ate very old dirt which when absorbed into their systems made them appear older than they were. You say, science makes assumptions and that if I agree with the results, I have to agree with the assumptions. I do not think we have to agree with every assumption precisely when there is disagreement amongst scientists. Changing a few assumptions might lead us to the same conclusions.

Hey there David,

I think you may have missed an essential detail in my comment. I said that you have to "accept all the assumptions that the scientists used to come to those results." You don't have to accept all the assumptions that scientists didn't use to come to the conclusion you cited. They could have all sorts of assumptions that you have good reason to reject. That's fine. But if you accept one of their conclusions, you are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that they used to come to that result. Do you understand this point?

Now you are correct that they might be able to come to the same conclusions with a different set of assumptions, but they didn't do that so your point is moot. My point stands. If you deny the assumptions used to come to a conclusion, you can not use the conclusion. Simple as that.

Elsewhere you have admitted that the first cell could haved been created. I would have thought that most Evolutionists would not agree with you. You have now put yourself in juxtaposition with Creationists just as I have done the same with Evolutionists to get to some common understanding. Our rational thought might mean that combined we could both be correct. However, to have got to this position, of which we can never be certain, because we were not there at the beginning, we are both having to make assumptions.

No evolutionist could deny the possibility that the first cell was created by God. Most would say that they don't believe it, but if they are logical they must admit that it is impossible to rule it out as a possibility because it goes beyond current scientific knowledge. This is why science can generally be trusted. It is confirmed by many witnesses (experiments, other scientists). Scientists understand and abide by logic and facts - such is their bread and butter. They are self-correcting, as you well know. The worst thing that could happen to a scientist is to be caught making false claims, fudging data, that kind of stuff. Scientists who willingly deceive are putting their careers in grave jeopardy. They know it would be foolish in the extreme since erroneous assumptions lead to error and error will always be exposed - that's the beauty and the power of science.

I very much like the idea of collaborating in the hopes of coming to a true estimation of reality. But there is a huge mountain of unfounded concepts that you take for granted which stands in our way. That's why I asked about the time line of life on this planet. That timeline is based o the collected results of the entire edifice of scientific evidence. It is "rock solid" if you know what I mean. Scientific consilience gives us great certainty of the general picture. Sure, there are almost certainly minor points here or there that will need to be refined, but the idea of a young earth is on the level of a "flat earth." Do you question that the earth is a globe? Of course not. Why not? Because of the sum of the scientific evidence. The same goes for the "old earth."

I take it you have not abandonned this discussion by what you say in the last sentence and we stay on track to anwering the fundamental questions leading up to establishing that the simplest components of a living cell could have self-formed from molecules. We are trying to establish some evidence.

All the best,

David

Yes, that topic seems very interesting indeed. I'll research more and report back as time permits.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard

[CWH]

Your logic is fallacious. The fact that man can make something does not mean it does not occur in nature. For example, we can create nuclear fusion. By your logic, that would mean that nuclear fusion cannot occur naturally in the sun.

The problem is that Nature discovered fusion energy way before humans and humans have to learn from Nature about fusion energy, magnetism, aerodynamics, electricity etc. So Nature actually have an upper hand in science.

God Bless Creations.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The problem is that Nature discovered fusion energy way before humans and humans have to learn from Nature about fusion energy, magnetism, aerodynamics, electricity etc. So Nature actually have an upper hand in science.

God Bless Creations.

That's illogical Cheow. Everyone knows that science learns from nature. That's the whole point of science. It is the opposite of dogmatic religion which denies reality (nature) in favor of dogmas they learned from books written by people who didn't know anything about reality.

You still have not answered my question. Let me ask it again: Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion? Can you answer this simple question?