Now, about DNA being a self-replicating, self-assembling chemical ~ we knew that. Darwinian evolution has little to do with self-assembly though.
What we don't know is if it has super computers in there somewhere.
Now, about DNA being a self-replicating, self-assembling chemical ~ we knew that. Darwinian evolution has little to do with self-assembly though.
What we don't know is if it has super computers in there somewhere.
Seems to me its a better arguement for intelligent design than “natural” evolution.
"Oh, Happy Day!" (oops, sorry NG, for that culturally insensitive, religions musical reference)
Unfortunately, they let some "soon to be dismissed" staff writer slip into the headline a bit of religious terminology, i.e. "Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own."
Keep plugging away, NG. Or, as Douglas Adams said, "Keep banging the rocks together!"
It's nonsense circular logic that Bio-ware wrote over a weekend because EA wanted to get the game out as fast as possible while hyping it up as much as they could!
The Synthesis ending was stupid! The Control Ending was stupid! and Destroy left everyone Effed over!
Oh wait, we weren't talking about Mass Effect 3's ending?
Sorry, I am still in remission from it.....
...
For instance, "it's possible that life didn't begin with DNA and proteins like we see today—it may have begun with something much, much simpler," he said.
Except in this case, they've shown that they can change something very complex into another form. They started with DNA, not something simpler. Am I reading it wrong?
Maybe I’m just paranoid, but it sounds like a potential “mad scientist” loophole to get around percentages of human DNA based experimentation in the lab by using XNA.
Even if this is true. It was an act of creation by an intelligent being to make it happen. Therefore not evolved in a truly naturalistic way.
Who’s your daddy?
Just from reading the brief review posted, there appear to
be a few potential areas that need clarification...
1) Where were the non natural sugar compounds attached to the
bases derived from? Were they synthesized in a nonintelligent
way?
2) only one of the artifical DNA’s(namely HNA) was able to
be altered by “selection pressure” What did the other XNA’s
do? Did they compete with the action of HNA? What was the
selection pressure? Was it a naturally occuring condition?
3) If the researchers “evolved” the polymerases, did they
start with a predetermined polymerase and changed it , or
did they form a polymerase by chance, and then “evolved” it?
Since when is using intelligence to alter something an
example of “naturally” occuring phenomena? Again, what were
the conditions for this “evolution” Was it a naturally
occuring physical environment, or was it a contrived environment?
4) How long of the chains of the XNAs were formed?...could there
be a natural limit to the size of these chemical polymers,
as is curling back in on itself and rendering itself useless
for further interactions.
5) Did these compounds pair up? What brought the compounds
all together in the correct way? What was the “chemical
yield” of these chemical reactions. Did only one percent
or 0.000001% of the polymers behave as reported.
6) What would happen to these compounds after their formation
if they are just left standing around...Would they decompose
rapidly?(think entropy)
7) Since the DNA’s and RNA’s need proteins and other
cytoplasmic agents to replicate and coil, and separate
(think mitotic spindle, or swivel proteins, non histone
proteins, etc) How does this information help that?
8) The action of DNA/RNA, protein synthesis ,etc in forming
life from basic chemicals is seen everyday in the development
of offspring(think babies, kittens, puppies, and guppys)
How does this information differ from that phenomena?
Interesting stuff. They should be able to learn a lot from it.
If the article is correct, it described Lamarckian evolution not Darwinian. That is, ‘pressures’ provoke hereditary changes passed down to offspring. “Giraffes have long necks because they needed to reach the tender growth at the top of the tree.”
There are many like them. And they have a plan.
Ahh, crap.
As in the days of Noah...
THX THX.
INDEED . . . as in the days of Noah . . .
Just one puzzle piece among many dozens on the same type of issue.
BTW, Roamer, 2ND Div Vet—would enjoy an update from both of you . . .
Prayers & hugs
LUB BROS.
Sooooo, Terminator might be real???
Seriously though, this scares the CRAP out of me!
XNA != 'cells' ; the polymerases were synthesized to order and did not form spontaneously; this article mentions selection pressure (unspecified) on the XNA in a test tube (in vitro, not in vivo, and not through the mechanism of selection of macroscopic characteristics of the organism possessing the XNA); no mention of any ability of any analogues to mRNA or the like, nor of any changes to the codons when going from four to six base pairs; come to think of it, no explanation of why six base pairs were used; and no mention of spontaneous mistranscriptions, methlyation, etc.
Too much smoke being blown, not enough fire as yet.
Cheers!
if it evolves, does it live?