Enzymes stitch together non-natural DNA [Getting closer to lab-made life]

Nature Magazine ^ | 24 February 2004 | PHILIP BALL

[VadeRetro]

Science is now using Darwinian scenarios to construct what it wants. To keep claiming that science is really proving ID, you have retreated to a position crouching directly behind Darwin.

Give it up!

[PatrickHenry]

Let's not lose track of these recent "evolution in the lab" threads:
Changing One Gene Launches New Fly Species.
Evolution Caught In The Act.

In addition to the lists of very predictable creationist responses to be found there, we can add some which have appeared so far in this thread:

1. All your rhetoric does is prove that evolutionism, whatever its scientific roots, has beeome as much a closed, unfalsifiable system in the minds of its vocal proponents as creationism is in the minds of its.
   11 posted on 02/24/2004 7:56:29 AM EST by The_Reader_David
2. Darwinians have not harnessed the principles of evolution. These scientists have used their intelligence to manipulate a piece of machinery.
   13 posted on 02/24/2004 8:30:30 AM EST by adakota
3. When they can create life out of nothing, then I'll pay attention.
   17 posted on 02/24/2004 9:07:30 AM EST by ZULU
4. Has there ever been anything *but* guided "evolution"?
   19 posted on 02/24/2004 9:45:08 AM EST by Michael_Michaelangelo
5. When scientists create something from nothing, I'll be the first in line to praise them!
   20 posted on 02/24/2004 9:49:08 AM EST by aMorePerfectUnion

[VadeRetro]

All your rhetoric does is prove that evolutionism, whatever its scientific roots, has beeome as much a closed, unfalsifiable system in the minds of its vocal proponents as creationism is in the minds of its.
11 posted on 02/24/2004 7:56:29 AM EST by The_Reader_David

I think much hinges upon the difference between "unfalsifiable" [clearly true of creationism] and "falsifiable in principle but unfalsified in fact over a span of 145 years."

[RightWingNilla]

Whats the big deal about this story? It obviously PROVES intelligent design. Ill start paying attention when scientists get their own dirt and gorillas start giving birth to humans.

[AndrewC]

Romesberg and his co-workers tried a different approach called 'directed evolution'.

Benner's group checked mutated forms to find a modified RT capable of stitching two non-standard bases into strings of DNA. They fine-tuned this enzyme using rational design.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

"Sometimes God makes it tough." It could be there's simply no monkeying with the fine-tuned chemistry that fashions gulls, pine trees, and scientists who dream of remaking life.

~Peter Schultz, a professor at Scripps and director of a new industry-funded genomics institute

[VadeRetro]

But this technique, called 'rational design', is a tedious and unpredictable process.

"Going the full distance is very difficult to do in a rational way," says Rui Sousa of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Sousa has designed polymerases that are being used commercially.

[The_Reader_David]

No, it is precisely the fact that the broadest version of evolution, which is embraced at least polemically, seems to not even be falsifiable in principle that I am pointing out.

Like Hamiltonian mechanics, which would generate falsifiable models for physical systems (a particular phase space and Hamiltonian), Darwinian theory generates fasifiable models for various biological phenomena. (And some get falsified from time to time.) Unlike Hamiltonian mechanics which has a particular definition and form, and thus was eventually falsified wholesale with the collapse of classical physics in the face of things like the two-slit experiment and problems involving the self-energy of the electron, Darwinian theory is sufficiently ill-defined that there aren't even any gedankenexperiments whose outcomes could force its abandonment: Darwinists would simply change the meanings of terms so that the outcome wasn't a falsification, just as creationists always squirm away by similar tactics.

Quite frankly, I'll bet that if it turns out that reverse transcriptase can affect the DNA of germ cells, it will be taken as 'confirmation' of evolutionary theory by materialist polemicists, even though it is Lamarkian and would demolish the DNA--->RNA--->protein 'dogma'.

I can imagine the rhetoric: "We've just understood more about the source of the variability. . .the theory doesn't depend on the variation being completely random. . .Darwin didn't know about DNA. . .etc."

[Mamzelle]

Hey, did we ever get any new fruit flies? I remember that thread--they were claiming that they had gene-spliced a new species of fruit fly.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Mamzelle]

Now, Pat, I hope you wouldn't neglect to mention that the headline of this story implies a new species of fruit fly--- yet, when you actually read the story it turns out that the lab techs are just hopeful of such a thing happening.

We want the truth, don't we?

Since it's been some weeks since these Intelligent Fruit Fly Designers in the lab have been tinkering with the DNA of the flies, have they turned up a new species yet? An update would illuminate.

[VadeRetro]

... Darwinian theory is sufficiently ill-defined that there aren't even any gedankenexperiments whose outcomes could force its abandonment...

Balderdash! The only problem is most of the falsifications should have happened by now and haven't. The fossil record could have failed to outline a tree of life. Heck, one Precambrian rabbit would have been a big blow.

The molecular evidence could have failed to outline a tree life, etc. Instead we have something mellifluously referred to as "the convergence of independent phylogenies."

Here! Every section of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution mentions potential falsifications.

Bonus prize: Is Evolution Science?

Evolutionary reasoning, for a single specific instance, discredited Piltdown Man. PM did not fit the evolutionary pattern otherwise developing. You might say it was evidence for the "Out of England" theory. PM was finally discredited with radiometric dating, yet another aspect of modern science rejected by most creationists.

Evolution tells you useful things about what to expect and what not. Creation/ID is a ticket to unlearning and mystification.

[Sloth]

But this technique, called 'rational design', is a tedious and unpredictable process.... Romesberg and his co-workers tried a different approach called 'directed evolution'.

aka Intelligent Design.

[PatrickHenry]

['directed evolution'] aka Intelligent Design.

Really? I didn't notice any mention of intelligent aliens in the lab. Nor did the authors of the article mention the blinding appearance of deities. Gonna limit your remark to human activity? Fine, but I'm not aware of any human tinkering with the development of life on earth in the eras revealed by the fossil record. So how in the world do you equate what this article discusses with the currently popular notion of "intelligent design"?

[Sloth]

So far as I am aware, 'intelligent design' is not focused on the identity of the designer. It's hardly some tremendous leap to call scientists manipulating genetic material in new configurations 'intelligent design', especially when the article itself uses the term 'rational design.'

[PatrickHenry]

So far as I am aware, 'intelligent design' is not focused on the identity of the designer.

[Sloth]

Gosh, I guess you're right!

[exDemMom]

It's hardly some tremendous leap to call scientists manipulating genetic material in new configurations 'intelligent design', especially when the article itself uses the term 'rational design.'

Maybe, maybe not. What we scientists call such manipulation of genetic material is "cloning." Cloning is such a mundane, everyday technique; calling it "intelligent" or "rational" design makes it sound, well, flashy.

[AndrewC]

Gee, math is hard!

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking, while the thread gets back on track ...