• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Confused about evolution

THANK YOU FKA!!!!

In one sentence I'm going to both answer your question and show the greatest thing about science.

ok ya ready for this?



... I don't know... and i dont have to try and make soemthing up to pretend i do..



maybe time is infinate and it literally has always been there? maybe it did just pop out of nothing? but if thats possible what was there before that? those are amazing questions that may never be answered, and dont seem very practical if you believe in god or not.. cuz both ideas had to come from soemthing dont they? maybe? yes? no? i dont know..
 
Upvote 0
Good answer. Seriously. I don't know either, which is obviously why I asked. My own opinion, though...to me, if you believe in creaton, and by extension a higher power/God, it takes LESS faith than to believe that out of nothing, something randomly popped into existence. The argument remains, though, then where did God come from? But if you believe in God, by extension you believe in a bible of one type or another, and most, if not all, say that God is infinite, and has always been and will always be. Again, to me, it takes less faith to believe this, because at least it is some sort of explanation, as opposed to every other theory, which CANNOT explain the starting point of evolution or life or anything else. But hey, I definitely agree with BuckeyeSoldier on this...I don't know. To me, creation, no matter whether you believe in the "seven day" theory or not, justifies human life, and all life. No other theory does. You can say we evolved from apes, but where did apes come from? Another species? Where did that species come from? You see the inherent weakness in that argument? It had to start somewhere, and it seems to me that creation is the ONLY theory that addresses that.
 
Upvote 0
i can only answer for myself....and what i believe......and you are correct...it had to start somewhere....

my beliefs are not christian, muslim, buddhist or any other religion in whole....through my searching i have found that they are basically the same in how it relates to the individual....i find it hard to believe that god would send a good man to hell b/c he was raised in the middle east and was a muslim by faith...

for the creation/evolution aspect....i believe both can co-exist together...one thing i was told once that made some sense is that god relies on our "faith" in him....we are judged by our faith in him....therefore he is never going to disclose the meaning of life and creation of the world to us....that would ruin faith....we are only man....if god doesnt want us to learn these things...i believe he is crafty enough to keep us from it...

maybe the fishbowl idea holds something.....i created my fish tank....i put the fish in it...i feed them...i keep their "universe" alive....however; i am not omnipotent and occassionally a fish will die before it should...i am sad about it...but i can not prevent some bad things from happening in that "world."

so...maybe god created....is crafty enough to make sure we never figure out how or why (at least while we are alive) and is not omnipotent....loving, but not omnipotent....
 
Upvote 0
hmm.. well im not sure if either is a bigger leap of faith.. but i suppose if you have already made on leap to believe in a god at all, then the second one isnt that much farther.. so that kinda makes sense... but i dont really consider what i am doing as making a leap of faith, but bcuz im not saying i believe in anything. im just saying that i dont know.. i mean as far as i know we could have been "planted" here by aliens? or maybe there is some other "being" that is so much more powerful than us that we would consider him god, maybe there is a whole race of them? i dont know.. i dont believe it is possible for anything to be omnipotent but beyond that i really have no clue.. maybe if we are lucky soemday in our lifetimes we will make a major breakthough and figure some of it out.. not likely but oh well..
 
Upvote 0
I am getting in on this kinda late and i am not here to stir things up but i have some questions/opinions on this matter. Why would people fear god if he is supposed to be good and the devil bad? Shouldnt it be the other way around. And if you believe god created everything on earth, who or what created god? Maybe religion is just a way of controling people and to have them act a certian way. I have had lengthy talks with people who believe in god and though i do not believe there is a god there may have been someone at one point in our history of mankind that did great things and he was remembered down through the years. I have often wondered if you took 10 newborn babies and put them on a deserted island with an adult man and woman who would take care of them but would not influence there thought or provide any answers the kids may ask when they are growing up, would they know there is a god or devil or religion without someone teaching them about it? I trust my own judgement on things i am not sure about by looking at factual information. To me this whole religion thing has its pluses but it also has its minuses. How many priests have molested young children? How many people have been killed by people who believe in god over the last 2000 years? I have seen a lot of church going people who would lie, cheat, steal , commit adultry etc.. that it sickens me to think what this world would be like if people didnt believe in god. I know there are a lot of good people in this world, but its up to that person to make the right choices in life. We are responsible for what we do and if you dont believe that, go out and kill someone and tell the judge at your trial that god told me to do it so it was ok and see what they do to you. I guess i am trying to say it is up to you to believe in what you want to but let everyone decide for themselves and just because you are not a believer dosnt make you a bad person. And by the way, GO BUCKS!
 
Upvote 0
DiHard said:
you mean like the first creature that was amphibious (or maybe it is ambidextrious)...that started the chain towards man???

before man became the 20th century version of itself.....i think mutation was a greater factor....but in this day and age....man controls too much too allow mutation at a species level....

now....bacteria...viruses...etc...are a different story.....or to steal from a pretty good robin cook novel....a self-introduced entity from space exploration.....


edit: think about it....we bring back this crap from another planet....what type of thing could be present that we have zero defense for...whether its a virus...bacteria...or something we cant even detect.....just a thought...
in reponse to the bold, i would really like to see you list ONE genetic mutation that is beneficial... just one. and besides, mutations are generally NOT hereditary, therefor, mutations, by definition, are anomalies, and not something that gets passed on to subsequent generations... and there is also that problem, in which the mutation actually IS hereditary, of there being TWO viable examples of the mutation of the 'species' that occur within close enough proximity to actually reproduce with each other- the odds of which are Beyond Astronomical...

if you are talking about those moths that changed colors from white, or light gray to black and dark gray, with the rise of the industrial age, you are not talking about mutations at all, but about information that was already present in the moth's genetic code... in which case, a mutation has not occured...

not to mention the basic premise of evolution is that MORE order and More complexity comes from less order and less complexity, which goes against EVERY Law of Nature, and Physics... (see Thermodynamics.)

BTW, Darwin recanted on his deathbed. did you know that? also, Darwinism was used as an excuse by Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to literally slaugher hundreds of millions of people...

just some food for thought...

Oh8ch said:
As soldier said, evolution is a proven fact. It can be directly observed in lower forms of life. It can be observerd in over 300,000 species of beetle.
ah! this is where your ignorance of the Bible text comes in to play... (NO, i'm not saying that you are un-intelligent!) the original translation of Genesis stated that the Animals reproduced "AFTER THEIR OWN KIND" 'Kind' is NOT species, 'kind' is genus. canis lupus and canis familiaris can intermingle as much as they want, and the progeny will always be viable... just as many 'species' of beetles are capable on mingling with other 'species'... a cocker spaniel, a coyote, and a wolf are all different species, but they are all of the same 'kind'...
Oh8ch said:
folks like Stephen Jay Gould who has spent his life studying more species of snails than would fit on the ark.
once again, there didn't need to be 'every species' of snail on the ark...

besides, the more specific a 'species' genetic code gets, the LESS overall information is present... a mutt dog has more genetic diversity than a chihuahua... which is again, a perfect example of the absolute patent falsehood that is evolution.

Tibor said:
I am unaware of any facts or scientific evidence detailing how creationism has any merit. If I have children, they will never set foot in a school where sham science like this is taught.
well, you better home school your kids... after all, i don't recall any creationsts inventing any 'missing links' to back their thoery up...

Examples:
JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.

In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old.

Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape.

Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as "Java Man," and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the "half-human half-ape" bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.

Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his "bone collection" nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.

PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.

Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.

In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax.
NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called "Nebraska Man"! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to "an extinct pig"! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing "Nebraska Man" was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.

Soldier said:
YES, it is a theory, but it is a theory that has scientific backing and it HAS been proven that creatures evolve, NOT just adapt, adapting is what you do to over come and obstable, evolving is what happens when your DNA IS CHANGED so that your entire species overcomes that obstacle get it?
the odds of that happening (entire genetic code changing) are so high as to be entirely impossible... see my first parapraph... the first time i see a squirrel beome something OTHER than a squirrel, i will become a firm believer in evolution, but until then, a 'new, improved' squirrel is STILL A SQUIRREL.

Soldier said:
where as religion doesnt only refuse to admit when its wrong but will KILL YOU IF YOU DISAGREE!!!!
that's pretty funny, since the 'scientists' of the day wanted to KILL Copernicus for his heliocentric beliefs. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION, TOO...

DiHard said:
the more complex the life....the longer it takes to achieve any form of dramatic "evolution".....

a virus can mutate/evolve at a faster rate than can the human...because it has to... <snip>...this type of existence is more likely to result in mutation than our human life....
of course, at the end of the day, you neglect to mention that after all the mutations, and 'evolution' that the virus undergoes, IT IS STILL A VIRUS.

DiHard said:
just a quick question for the creationists who believe in an omnipotent god......how do you explain a tornado hitting a daycare center and killing young children?

is god omnipotent? or are we simply his fishbowl? if he is omnipotent....then he cant be compassionate.....
to answer that very loaded question: Matthew Chapter 5, verse, 44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people... it's just life... your legacy is NOT in what curveballs life throws at you, but in how you respond to those curves... will you curse God and Die? or will you say, "all things work together for good to them that love God." ???

DiHard said:
killer...

how about the thought that god is not omnipotent.....he is the creator...but no more than i created my fish tank....my fish still die from time to time....
now you are reaching. so, because your fish occasionally die, you are by default, a heartless, and cruel fish owner? NO! and for anyone to tell you that you are, would be ludicrous... just because something happens (your fish dying), doesn't mean that you wanted it to, or that you take come perverse pleasure from it... and it does not refute God's omnipotence. just because God does not stop the tornado in it's tracks, does no mean that he CAN'T... it is just how it is...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
in reply:

floridabuck: read up on buddhism and taoism.....private message me for some good reads....both of those religions rely on the individual being responsible for his or her own religious growth....from what i got from your post, you may be interested in reading about it....

lvbuck: long before apes became man.....a creature from the sea MUTATED and was able to breath on land and in the water.....this creature then EVOLVED to the point that it only breathed on land...and so on and so on....

edit: that was the first ambidextrious creature... :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
DiHard said:
in reply:


lvbuck: long before apes became man.....a creature from the sea MUTATED and was able to breath on land and in the water.....this creature then EVOLVED to the point that it only breathed on land...and so on and so on....

edit: that was the first ambidextrious creature... :wink2:
can you PROVE that? LMAO...

OK.. i'll finish my input into this discussion, by quoting from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams:

"The Babel Fish," said The Hitchhikers's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow, and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from it's own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave enenrgy to nourish itself with. It then secretes into the mind of the carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brian which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything that is said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
non-existance of God.

"The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguement, you don't. QED.'

"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on top prove that black is white, and gets himself killed in the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this arguement is a load of dingoe's kidneys, but that didn' stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central them of his best-selling book,
Well That about Wraps It Up for God.

"Meanwhile, the poor Bable fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

:biggrin: i hope you saw the irony in the last sentence...
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
I am always amused whenever these wackos running school boards in Kansas or the South try to get evolution out of the textbooks and creationism taught instead. first of all, are the two concepts by definition not compatible? Couldn't you argue that God put man and animals on the planet and then he let them fight it out amongst themselves without any intervention (i.e. survival of the fittest).

Second, I believe that Darwin believed that man descended from the apes. but does this really have anything to do with the theory of evolution? From what I remember, evolution basically details the interactions of animals with the environment - and how the environment "selects" out those characteristics that favor survival and allows those animals with those characteristics to have kids and multiply. This explains why African Americans have a much much higher incidence of sickle cell disease - having the sickle cell trait protects you from malaria, which is life saving in Africa, but useless if you're a white person in Europe. And, hasn't evolution been basically "proven" to be true? I mean, you can never really "prove" a law of nature, but scientists seem to agree that it's the best model we have as to how animals change over time the way that they do. I wish I had discussions like this in high school.
Yes you are definitely confused! Creationism teaches that a Supreme Being, namely God, created all things. That creation included every creatures that ever lived. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that nothing is created. Life was by chance, not be design. Your statement and question of " I believe that Darwin believed that man descended from the apes. but does this really have anything to do with the theory of evolution?" tells me that you were not taught correctly. The teaching that man descended from the apes is the central point of evolution! Darwin's central theme of his theory is that man was not created by God, but evolved from the apes...these two teachings totally contradict each other. My questions to you are...what did the apes evolved from ans why are they still here?
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye and buckeye1

A couple of great post from both of you.
Since molecules-to-man has never been created again, humanist evolution is based on faith just as creation is based on faith. Why should evolution get special treatment in the science classroom? If one is taught then the other must be.
I love the thought of life happening by "chance".
"Chance", as it is, has no power to create. How can it be that it created life?
 
Upvote 0
lv buck everysingle thing you just said was purely opinion with no fact and you expect us to accept that a irrefutable evidence? most of what you said was was either just plain wrong or lies.. im not sure which.. if you actually want proof of the things you are trying to dispute contact me and ill get it for you.. but you OBVIOUSLY have no clue as to what you are talking about... that or you are so biased you are blind to everything but one side of it..
 
Upvote 0
good lord you guys just because someone types a long ass post doesnt mean ur side is winning, you still have no scientific evidence to support your claims, and NO, MAN EVOLVING FROM APES IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTION IS ALL ABOUT!! good lord man... i already told you all that once.. i am a frigging genetics major give me soem credit here PLEASE
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye1 - one reason folks keep going around in circles about evolution is that there are multiple definitions and different groups choose the one that best fits their argument at the time.

The most precise technical definition I can find is that evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

There aren't many thinking folks out there who would dispute that evolution under that definition is a proven fact. (Next time your doctor prescribes an antibiotic ask him why it is so important that you take the entire prescription.)

The second common definition - and one which is much less precise - is whether we all descended from a common ancestor. It is here that the term 'theory' is commonly applied to evolution. But the word theory is applied by various scientists not becase they doubt such descent, but because they differ over how it occurred.

It is absolutely true that there are holes in our tracking of the progression of species - even conflicts at times. But every year that goes by the evidence to support descent from a common ancestor grows. The fossil record is incomplete, but it is not terribly inconsistent. There is overwhelming evidence of the development of more complex species over time (despite an earlier suggestion that this defies natural law).

A couple of posters have made mention of the central point of Darwin's theories as having problems or the 'fact' that he recanted on his deathe bed. In what conceivable way is that relevant? Evolution is not true or false becuase of anything Darwin said - it is true or false because it is true or false. Darwin simply focused the attention of many great minds to follow. In fact, there is much debate as to whether Darwin or one of his contemporaries was the first to come up with the basic theories for which Darwin is known. (I do not know whether that contemporary recanted or not.)

In any case, man's descent from the ape is absolutely NOT at the center of Darwin's work. (There were no apes and few humans present when he visited the Galapagos.)

But my favorite argument from the creationists is when they point to holes in the evolutionary progression - such as the missing predecessor to the ape - and essentially state "Because there is a hole in your theory, creationsism must be true." That 'logic' loses me every time.
 
Upvote 0
<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top background=images/longevity-sub-bg.jpg height=30><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=subpage_title>Science on verge of new `Creation'</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2 height=4></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top bgColor=#ffffff><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5></TD><TD class=subpage_text vAlign=top>Labs say they have nearly all the tools to make artificial life

More than 3.5 billion years after nature transformed non-living matter into living things, populating Earth with a cornucopia of animals and plants, scientists say they are finally ready to try their hand at creating life.

If they succeed, humanity will enter a new age of "living technology," where harnessing the power of life to spontaneously adapt to complex situations could solve problems that now defy modern engineering.

Scientists eagerly talk of a new world of ultra-small living machines, where marvelously made-to-order cells heal the body, clean up pollutants, transform electronics and communication, and much more.

The researchers say it may be possible to make sweaters that mend themselves. Or computers that fix their own glitches.

Though some experts see this new technology as providing unlimited benefits, others worry about the moral appropriateness of human-made life and the introduction of new species with the potential to evolve into creatures that could run amok.

"It's certainly true that we are tinkering with something very powerful here," said artificial-life researcher Steen Rasmussen of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

"But there's no difference between what we do here and what humans have always done when we invented fire, transistors and ways to split the atom," he said. "The more powerful technology you unleash, the more careful you have to be."

Such concern is escalating as more than 100 laboratories study processes involved in the creation of life, and scientists say for the first time that they have just about all the pieces they need to begin making inanimate chemicals come alive.

Unlike any other technology invented by humans, creating artificial life will be as jarring to our concepts of ourselves as discovering living creatures on other planets in the universe would be. It also would bring into sharper focus the age-old questions of "What is life?" and "Where do we come from?"

"The ability to make new forms of life from scratch--molecular living systems from chemicals we get from a chemical supply store--is going to have a profound impact on society, much of it positive, but some of it potentially negative," said Mark Bedau, professor of philosophy and humanities at Reed College in Portland, Ore., and editor-in-chief of the Artificial Life Journal.

"Aside from the vast scientific insights that will come, there will be vast commercial and economic benefits, so much so that it's hard to contemplate in concrete detail what many of them will be," he said.

But the first artificial life also is likely to shock people's religious and cultural belief systems.

"People from many different backgrounds have special views about what life is: how it originates, the special sanctity it has, the special dignity it deserves," Bedau said. "The ability to make new forms of life will perturb all of that. We need to think through the implications and how we are going to react to them."

`Biology revolution'

Still, artificial life now seems so attainable that the number of U.S. labs working in the field jumped from about 10 four decades ago to more than 100 today.

Spearheading the drive is the European Union's Programmable Artificial Cell Evolution project, recently established with a grant of about $9 million. This month PACE is scheduled to open the first institution devoted exclusively to creating artificial life, called the European Center for Living Technology, in Venice, staffed by European and U.S. researchers.

"It's a synthetic biology revolution," said John McCaskill, professor of theoretical biochemistry at Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, Germany, who is overseeing the European Union's artificial life program.

"We obviously don't want to be too polemic about how rapidly this is going to transform society," he said. "But I think that we are seeing a new feature of science and technology where systems are tonomously adaptive and that this is a significant component of the design process."

Scientists are trying to unravel the grand mystery of how life originated on Earth, and possibly Mars and other places in the universe. How is it that when atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen are organized in the right way, for example, they make a carrot? Arranging far more atoms in a different way produces a human being.

Life is generally not thought of as being mechanical. But a cell basically is a miniature machine in which non-living atoms are constantly being rearranged to make the moving parts that imbue it with life.

The cell, the basic unit of all living things, becomes much more than all of its parts. New properties emerge that give a cell the power to repair itself, reproduce and adapt to changing environments.

A key element of all living systems is the ability to evolve through natural selection. Things that are successful survive, while those that fail to adapt die off. The idea is to incorporate this evolutionary design process into technology that people can use, making things that are complicated and well-adapted without having to figure out in advance all the problems that could arise.

"Our technology right now is facing a complexity crisis. We need to make things that are more complicated if we want to have new kinds of functionality," Bedau said. "We want to have better telephone switching networks, better computers, better spacecraft, but we don't know how to do it."

"If we could make life, we would have a new insight into how to make things more complicated," he said. "We could apply these principles in other areas. Life is very, very complicated, but it also repairs itself, it organizes itself and it adapts spontaneously to changes. It would be nice to have a space shuttle that can do those things or a telephone switching network that can grow and adapt in an organic way."

It is a dream long pursued by scientists who now believe that it may be possible to create the first artificial unit of life in the next 5 to 10 years.

"We've been saying that for the last 50 years," said David W. Deamer, a pioneering professor of biomolecular engineering at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "What makes it different now is that we have a critical mass of people interested in the field and some recent breakthrough discoveries."

Natural safeguards

From Deamer's point of view, the risk that artificially created life could get out of hand is "infinitesimally small."

"There's nothing we could make that could compete with the predators that are out there and have had 3 billion years to evolve," he said. "Bacteria eat anything. They eat jet fuel, oil deposits, chlorinated hydrocarbons, anything. They will eat anything that we put out there to compete with them."

Another safeguard scientists are designing to provide total control over artificial cells is to make their lives dependent on chemicals that do not exist in the environment. Withdrawing the critical chemicals would result in the death of the cells, particularly if they should escape into the environment.

What makes life possible, scientists believe, is the natural tendency of atoms to assemble into molecules, and for molecules to assemble into increasingly complicated structures.

All of the basic elements of life--the amino acids that make proteins and the nucleotides that make DNA and its sidekick RNA--have been produced in the laboratory from chemicals thought to have been present on primitive Earth: hydrogen, methane, ammonia, formaldehyde, cyanide, thiols and hydrosulfide.

Some of these elements are so easy to self-assemble that amino acids are found on meteorites originating at the beginning of the solar system. The Murchison meteorite, for example, contains a wide variety of chemicals, including simple amino acids and fats called lipids. When put in water, lipids spontaneously form bubble-shaped membranes that resemble cells.

Earth coalesced 4.5 billion years ago during the formation of the solar system, and it was too hot for life for several hundred million years. But it didn't take long after the Earth cooled for life to appear. Scientists estimate that fossils of primitive organisms appeared 3.8 billion years ago.

Researchers argue over the definition of life, but they generally agree that it must have three elements: a container, such as the membrane wall of a cell; metabolism, the ability to convert basic nutrients into a cell's working parts; and genes, chemical instructions for building a cell that can be passed on to progeny and change as conditions change.

Each of these critical elements has now been achieved in the laboratory, albeit in rudimentary form, and scientists say they are ready to try to put them all together in one working unit.

"We have quite a bit of knowledge about how these different systems work independently," said microbiologist Martin Hanczyc of Massachusetts General Hospital. "We are at a point where we can start taking these things into the laboratory and do experiments.

"Whether we'll be able to synthesize a living cell in the near future is a big question. But we can start exploring that possibility with what we have available now," said Hanczyc, who along with Harvard's Jack Szostak is able to make artificial cellular membranes grow and divide.

One of the tricks they learned is how to use the remarkable properties of clay, thought to have been abundant on the early Earth. Clay has natural catalytic properties--it speeds up the assembly of lipid membranes a hundredfold, for example, and also hastens the assembly of genetic material called ribonucleic acid.

The two researchers' findings indicate that critical chemicals can spontaneously be brought together to form membranes and genes that are essential for life. They have succeeded in creating cell-like containers that have incorporated laboratory-made RNA.

A genetic riddle

How the first genes got together is a big mystery. Many scientists believe that RNA may have preceded DNA because it can carry genetic instructions and, unlike DNA, make copies of itself. Today DNA preserves the chemical instructions for making and maintaining an organism, while RNA mostly translates those instructions into proteins. DNA and RNA are nearly identical in structure.

David Bartel of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research is trying to make RNA that can fully reproduce itself. So far he has gotten compounds to assemble into small RNA sequences that can make partial copies of themselves.

Bartel calls it test tube evolution. More than 1,000 trillion random RNAs are squirted into a test tube and allowed to assemble into millions of different sequences. A few of those sequences acquired the ability to make copies of RNA sequences, a fledgling step toward artificial life that can reproduce itself and evolve.

Key ingredient

Rasmussen of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Liaohai Chen of Argonne National Laboratory believe they have a good chance of making an artificial cell by using a slightly different version of DNA called polypeptide nucleic acid.

Unlimited variations of PNA can easily be made. They love to stick to the surface of membranes where they can suck up nutrients and hopefully churn out all kinds of novel chemicals, including more cell membrane lipids.

"We have all the pieces, and we have demonstrated that our metabolism can produce the container molecules," Chen said. The protocells that assemble are 10 million times smaller than a bacterium, he said.

The idea is to get all the parts working together so that the artificial cells would not only make daughter cells, but would also be able to manufacture custom-made chemicals now beyond the reach of engineers, such as self-repairing materials.

"Once we have self-reproducing entities that can be programmed, you can do all kinds of useful things," Rasmussen said. "You don't need to build the useful molecules--you can actually have them self-reproduce--you can grow them."

Physicist Norman Packard, who established the first company, ProtoLife, to capitalize on the new field of living technology, thinks of artificial cells as tiny machines that can be programmed to clean out arteries, deliver drugs to specific sites in the body and perform other jobs with great precision.

"The goal of the company is to realize the vision of producing living artificial cells, and also producing other forms of living chemistry, and then programming them to do useful chemical applications," he said. "The range of useful chemical functions we ultimately envision is vast."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/393,5703.html



thought you might like to see that its not THAT hard to do this.. certainly doesnt take an omnipotent being...
 
Upvote 0
And the salient fact is this, If by evolution we mean macroevolution, then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction.
Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionist with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange....And yet the fact remains that there exists to this very day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have occured
Wolfgang Smith
Author and prof at MIT and UCLA



The evolution doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity...a system destitute of any shadow of proof and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech.
No one pretends that they actually rest on facts observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species.
Simply let a reader take up Darwin's writings or Spencer;s biology and merely ask with each paragraph read "What is assumed and what is proved? And the reader will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision.......We thus see that evolution as a hypothesis has no basis in experience or scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transformation has breaks which cannot be filled

Sir Willam Dawson
Pioneer of Canadian geology
President of McGill University
President of the British Association for the
advancement of science

Dawson especially explained why evolution is no less a religion than creation is. Why should it be given favor over creationism in our science classrooms?
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top