Replies

In the current study, Reader and Joyce first created a three-base enzyme (A, U, G) and then performed chemical manipulations to convert all the A to D (diaminopurine, a modified form of A) and biochemical manipulations to remove all the G. They were left with an enzyme based on a two-letter code (D and U).

Let's see what has been 'proven' here. That if you manipulate chemicals in the laboratory you can get an enzyme out of two chemical bases - one of which is not one of the bases on which all life is based. Now this research does not tell us where they got the RNA strand, but I am sure that they 'borrowed' it. Of course, they created an enxyme which they refuse to name and may not even occur in any living thing. Of course even if you get an enzyme you will not get a living thing. You need the whole structure of some half million DNA bases and you certainly cannot have a working living thing with only two DNA bases one of which does not appear in any living thing. There are also lots of questions as to how the transcription took place and how much intervention was necessary to accomplish it - the article does not bother to say that either. You certainly need the cell itself for a living organism because the transcription needs material to form the enzyme, protein, or whatever it is producing. The so called scientists that did this so called research also did not even try to simulate natural conditions. They were trying to prove a point and used all the scientific knowledge we have to try to prove it and ended up proving nothing. Another example of our tax dollars at work!