PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Abiogenesis - a step closer

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember the Harvard 'Origins of Life Inititive'?  Well, they announced on Saturday (March 7) a breakthrough in creating synthetic ribosomes that can create long complex protein molecules.

Using the bacteria E. coli, Church and Research Fellow Michael Jewett extracted the bacteria’s natural ribosomes, broke them down into their constituent parts, removed the key ribosomal RNA and then synthesized the ribosomal RNA anew from molecules.

This could also have industrial applications in being able to create synthetic ribosomes that are designed for industrial needs.

Also at the meeting several other researchers had the folowing to say:

Jack Szostak presented his recent research into the creation and propagation of synthetic cells, showing that membranes form from simple fat molecules spontaneously under certain conditions. In addition to the membranes, he reviewed research into possible ways that basic genetic information may have originally been stored and conveyed in simple RNA-like molecules. His work, he said, is exploring the properties of these RNA-like molecules, seeking variations that make them better early candidates to store and replicate genetic information than either DNA or RNA, which perform those functions in modern cells, but require complex molecular machinery to do so.



Read the article:
Toward Synthetic Life


I think as research progresses we are seeing that abiogenesis is NOT the impossible process that Creationists would have us believe.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:15 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a very interesting article, Orion. Kind of like smashing a watch and putting it back together with a new spring. Only a lot smaller.

I would just like to point out the first sentence in the article: "Harvard scientists have cleared a key hurdle in the creation of synthetic life,"


"The ultimate goal is to create an artificial genome of 151 genes that they believe are the minimum to create a functioning, self-replicating cell."
In other words, for abiogenesis to happen by itself to form a living cell, random chance would have to accidentally put together a string of nucleotides that has at least 151 gene sequences that accidentally form the proteins necessary for it to live? Can you explain this in a way that makes sense?

(Edited by timbrx 3/9/2009 at 6:53 PM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:52 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, I'm well aware of what it said Timbrx.  

However, in understanding the steps involved in creating synthetic life, researchers will also understand more clearly of possible pathways for life originating in the first place on a primordial earth.

I don't expect you to agree.  That's okay.  I have no intention of trying to convince you of evolution or abiogenesis any longer.  You don't present any evidence supporting your alternate theory of Creation.  All you say is evolution can't be so.  Well, that's fine for you to believe that.  But the fact is, that argument  doesn't wash in the scientific community.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:11 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The ultimate goal is to create an artificial genome of 151 genes that they believe are the minimum to create a functioning, self-replicating cell.
'Cell'. They believe that's the minimum to create a self replicating 'cell'.

It's certainly not the minimum to create a self-replicating something. We know it's not.

Self-replicating chemicals can be selected for their ability to, well, self-replicate. They can grow in complexity to make their job better. They can (and have) reached the point when they 'learn' to make a membrane (for protection, you know).

It has been shown that it's not that hard. Nature had a bigger lab, and more time to experiment.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:00 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.