08 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouse"When I start to tell people about this, they sometimes wonder if we're merely suggesting the possibility of such an enzyme—but no, we actually made it," said Gerald F. Joyce, professor in TSRI's Departments of Chemistry and Cell and Molecular Biology and director of the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation.
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-scientists-enzyme-life.
Getting closer to the explanation of the origin of life creationists hate.
My dear sonhouse, this would be evidence of intelligent design and creationism, not evolution. 😏
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIf leaving chemistry to itself and observing a new enzyme form is intelligent design in your view, I'm really hoping you yourself are not a designer - but if you are, hopefully it's in graphics or something equally harmless.
"When I start to tell people about this, they sometimes wonder if we're merely suggesting the possibility of such an enzyme—but no, [b]we actually made it," said Gerald F. Joyce, professor in TSRI's Departments of Chemistry and Cell and Molecular Biology and director of the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation.
My dear sonhouse, this would be evidence of intelligent design and creationism, not evolution. 😏[/b]
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNow you moved the goalpost again. A couple of years ago, I mentioned science is on its way to making life in the labs and you said, that will never happen since you can't make life from rocks.
"When I start to tell people about this, they sometimes wonder if we're merely suggesting the possibility of such an enzyme—but no, [b]we actually made it," said Gerald F. Joyce, professor in TSRI's Departments of Chemistry and Cell and Molecular Biology and director of the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation.
My dear sonhouse, this would be evidence of intelligent design and creationism, not evolution. 😏[/b]
Now, presented with solid evidence that maybe we CAN make life from scratch, your goalpost has flown back about 50 yards.
You really need to keep your stories straight. I am older than you and I can still remember what went on in the past, and it looks to me like that would be because I don't live my life in fear of devils under every rock which has to be taking up a significant portion of your brain cpu power, that is, the few cells left for such things.
You really need to work on improving your memory so you don't make this kind of literary blunder in the future.
Knowing you, I think we will just be going over the same ground as we always do and you will inevitably do more literary blunders.
08 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessHe said himself, "We actually made it." That is not leaving chemistry to itself, my young idiot. 😏
If leaving chemistry to itself and observing a new enzyme form is intelligent design in your view, I'm really hoping you yourself are not a designer - but if you are, hopefully it's in graphics or something equally harmless.
08 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI haven't moved any goalpost. I stand by my statement. It is up to them to prove me wrong. An enzyme is not life, old man. 😏
Now you moved the goalpost again. A couple of years ago, I mentioned science is on its way to making life in the labs and you said, that will never happen since you can't make life from rocks.
Now, presented with solid evidence that maybe we CAN make life from scratch, your goalpost has flown back about 50 yards.
You really need to keep your stories ...[text shortened]... be going over the same ground as we always do and you will inevitably do more literary blunders.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThey assisted in the selection process (it would have been a million times slower in nature), but the enzyme formed as a result of leaving each batch to itself - hence they describe it as test tube evolution.
He said himself, "We actually made it." That is not leaving chemistry to itself, my young idiot. 😏
You're welcome. 🙂
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThe creationists ability to ignore the obvious when it doesn't suit them, and create elaborate structures of subterfuge to make their ill-supported ideas appear solid, is an interesting topic for research in and of itself. Enzymes are the catalysts without which life would be impossible, as you well know. This is, ignore it or not, a significant discovery in how life could begin.
I haven't moved any goalpost. I stand by my statement. It is up to them to prove me wrong. An enzyme is not life, old man. 😏
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessMaking the conditions to produce an amino acid did not produce any life and neither will making the right conditions for producing an enzyme. It is all fantasy land thinking. 😏
They assisted in the selection process (it would have been a million times slower in nature), but the enzyme formed as a result of leaving each batch to itself - hence they describe it as test tube evolution.
You're welcome. 🙂
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessThe obvious is that no life was produced. 😏
The creationists ability to ignore the obvious when it doesn't suit them, and create elaborate structures of subterfuge to make their ill-supported ideas appear solid, is an interesting topic for research in and of itself. Enzymes are the catalysts without which life would be impossible, as you well know. This is, ignore it or not, a significant discovery in how life could begin.