Posted on 09/10/2006 5:38:02 AM PDT by voletti
At the moment, what passes for genetic engineering is mere pottering. It means moving genes one at a time from species to species so that bacteria can produce human proteins that are useful as drugs, and crops can produce bacterial proteins that are useful as insecticides. True engineering would involve more radical redesigns. But the Carlson curve (Dr Carlson disavows the name, but that may not stop it from sticking) is making that possible.
In the short run such engineering means assembling genes from different organisms to create new metabolic pathways or even new organisms. In the long run it might involve re-writing the genetic code altogether, to create things that are beyond the range of existing biology. These are enterprises far more worthy of the name of genetic engineering than today's tinkering. But since that name is taken, the field's pioneers have had to come up with a new one. They have dubbed their fledgling discipline “synthetic biology”. Truly intelligent design
One of synthetic biology's most radical spirits is Drew Endy. Dr Endy, who works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to the subject from engineering, not biology. As an engineer, he can recognise a kludge when he sees one. And life, in his opinion, is a kludge.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Not getting enough attention on the thread? Too bad.
Because they have an archive of spam.
This stuff has been posted by the same posters, hundreds of times. It's one of the vagaries of the internet--you can shut down discussion just by shunting in truckloads of what has already been hashed and rehashed.
You have an interesting hypothesis, however you neglected to provide or reference any evidence for your claims.
You read those (more than 50) links in 14 minutes?
You remind me of the guy with his fingers in his ears going "la la la" At the top of his voice.
It is because the average creationist here refuses to learn and keeps spouting the same nonsense thread after thread.
This continual spouting of nonsense that has been refuted for more than the five years I have been here is nothing more than a form of disruption. It detracts from the original intent of the thread.
Thusly, once again the creationists trash a perfectly good science thread.
Some of them were pinged from outside, in case you didn't notice. But evos without religious conservatives make for just another low-subscription and poorly attended thread...like in another forum I know.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Gads. I bet you spend more time over there than I do.
LOL!
Now you're being silly. ;)
When you're trolling for suckers, it doesn't matter if some aren't taking the bait (or why) so long as you think some are.
Oooo! Font size seven. Case closed.
I for one welcome our new bio-robot overlords.
If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you'd like to understand the concept of speciation, visit Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
The Democratic National Convention?
Oh, OK. You gotta point.
Perfection apparently includes the quality of degenerating.
Data-dump placemarker.
Exactly! And DNA is just evidence that certain organic molecules behave according to the laws of chemistry and physics. I think you've done an excellent job here of revealing ID to be utter bollocks.
What Flood? There was no Flood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.