[PrestonSturges]

Back in the 1940s and 50s, biology was attractive to physicists because there were many puzzles and technical challenges. Then it turned out that life chugs along with massively redundant and sloppy processes that have none of the clean elegance of theoretical physics. Physicists operate in a very narrow mindset constrained by mathematical conjecture.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'a')nd nobody has ever made a functioning gene.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o. In 2010 we achieved the making functional genes and a functional cell from synthetic dna fragments.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')s it really an artificial life form?

The inventors call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life – changing one simple type of bacterium into another – than a built-from-scratch kind.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o. In 2010 we achieved the making functional genes and a functional cell from synthetic dna fragments.

[SeaGypsy]

Come off it Kieth, that is the exact question and 'in principle' doesn't translate to 'in reality' in this case.

[vision-master]

The Evolutionists are grasping @ straws........

[Cog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')n principle they could synthesize the DNA from the elements. If they made a functioning, self-reproducing cell completely from elements, would you still say "That's not the same" ?

[vision-master]

We can create energy from matter, but not matter from energy, yet.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')n principle they could synthesize the DNA from the elements. If they made a functioning, self-reproducing cell completely from elements, would you still say "That's not the same" ?

[Cog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')n principle they could synthesize the DNA from the elements. If they made a functioning, self-reproducing cell completely from elements, would you still say "That's not the same" ?

[SeaGypsy]

This very elaborate article on Wiki goes into great detail on this question in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There is no solid theory on abiogenisis. There are a stack of competing theories. None of them has ever produced a working model of any living form, capable or incapable if reproduction.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '
')You ever see nature create a television set? After all its just elements?

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'T')his very elaborate article on Wiki goes into great detail on this question in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There is no solid theory on abiogenisis. There are a stack of competing theories.

[SeaGypsy]

All it means is that there are still huge questions science has no answer for. Personally I would not choose to say any religion encapsulates the answer to these same questions. But the questions remain.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'A')ll it means is that there are still huge questions science has no answer for. Personally I would not choose to say any religion encapsulates the answer to these same questions. But the questions remain.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')n principle they could synthesize the DNA from the elements. If they made a functioning, self-reproducing cell completely from elements, would you still say "That's not the same" ?

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'A')ll it means is that there are still huge questions science has no answer for. Personally I would not choose to say any religion encapsulates the answer to these same questions. But the questions remain.

[Daphne64]

I'm coming at this from an agnostic point of view. My big question with evolution is the jump from homo erectus to Homo sapiens. I don't hear about many transitional remains being found, so lets assume an upper limit of 100,000 years to make a transition, or 4000 generations.

The population levels might have been about one million. So we went from homo erectus to homo sapiens with 4 billion individuals?

Human beings have about 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Supposedly we have 97% of them in common with chimps, so that's about 90 million base pairs difference. Lets say homo erectus shared about 99% of DNA in common with modern man, so that's still about 30 million base pairs difference.

If most random mutations are deleterious, how in world could we make that big a jump without some kind of "engineering" hand?

I realize that the idea of a God opens up just as big a can of worms, but I haven't heard anyone address how much change must have happened with a relatively small number of individuals.

Also, why have we not seen any changes in humans over the last 4000 years (other that what can be explained by diet and such), once the human population started to be numbered in the hundreds of millions, rather than hundreds of thousands or single digit millions?

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daphne64', 'I')f most random mutations are deleterious, how in world could we make that big a jump without some kind of "engineering" hand?