Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Dstortions
This post title was taken directly from the Sciencexpress research article title. Here are a few headlines from the popular press.
1st cell with synthetic genome — TheScientist
J. Craig Venter Institute creates first synthetic life form — The Christian Science Monitor
Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life — Wired
I think the media is more about sensationalized entertainment than informative reporting, but you would expect them to at least accurately report the facts somewhere in their reporting. I shouldn’t be surprise at the exaggerated claims from the popular press, except over time we have become desensitized to this misreporting and we are being collectively brainwashed to believe the popular press rather than reality. I think this is also in part for the widespread acceptance of Darwinism.
I want to commend Venter and his team for doing some amazing bioengineering work. It will undoubtedly lead to other breakthroughs in treating illnesses. However it does fall far short of what scientists ultimately would like to do, i.e. to create life from scratch. In other words, what Venter has done is still a long way from what the popular press headlines are claiming.
What Venter’s team has accomplished is exactly what they set out to do as reported back in 2003 and I posted about it here in 2005. While this is a remarking piece of bioengineering, in truth Venter has not actually created any life. He merely took the digitized genome of a Mycoplasma mycoides, assembled the DNA from small pieces and inserted it into the cell of a Mycoplasma capricolum with its genetic material removed through enzymatic process.
I don’t know about you but the headline says “first synthetic life” or “Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life” I would expect a de novo DNA of a genomic sequence that does not exist. I would expect something from molecules to a self replicating cell. In the whole scheme of things, this is more like copying someone else’s homework with borrowed papers and pen. Unfortunately, I think scientists sometimes are complicit in misleading the public by not admonishing or even correcting these sensational headlines. This kind of misinformation does not ultimately benefit science.
Darwin’s Dilemma
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
I am looking forward to watching Darwin’s Dilemma.
Poor PZ! He tried. He “really, honestly tried!”
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Biology, Darwinism, Humor, entertainment
The (in)famous PZ Myers, well-known ID critic and staunch Darwinist and philosophical naturalist, is at it again. He has written a “review” of The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary. PZ starts off in a huff:
I tried. I really, honestly, sincerely tried. I’ve been struggling with this book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, for the past week and a half, and I’ve finally decided it’s not worth the effort. It’s just about completely unreadable.
Poor fellow. It must have been a real effort for him to try to comprehend the book. Read the rest of this entry »
Darwinian Circular Reasoning
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Darwinism, Evolution
It is obvious that Dr. Ely has no formal education in evolutionary biology because of his poor understanding of evolutionary biology. We know Dr. Ely has a poor understanding because he criticizes evolutionary biology. And anyone educated in evolutionary biology will receive a credential in biology if they agree with evolutionary biology. The fact that Dr. Ely criticizes evolutionary biology means that he was not educated in evolutionary biology or he was not able to understand it. Oh, how beautiful is the Darwinian circular reasoning.
Dr. Ely has no formal training in evolutionary biology outside what he may have received in an introductory biology course.Dr. Ely is a physiologist, receiving his formal training in a medical school environment. From Dr. Ely’s own statements as well as our various interactions with him, it is abundantly clear that Dr. Ely has a poor understanding of evolutionary biology.
Indeed, if undergraduate majors in our biology department revealed such profound misconceptions about basic evolutionary biology we would have serious misgivings about conferring their degrees in biology.
Similar stem cells in insect and human gut
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Darwinism
Mike Gene posted on similarities between fruitfly and human gut. The Nature article is here ” The adult Drosophila posterior midgut is maintained by pluripotent stem cells”
Eric Anderson Says:
From the cited paper summary:
The six-legged fruitfly appears to have little in common with humans, but a new finding shows that they are really just tiny, distant cousins. . . . “The fact that fruitflies have the same genetic programming in their intestines as humans, strongly suggests that we were both cut from the same evolutionary cloth more than 500 million years ago,” stated lead author of the December 7, on-line Nature paper, Benjamin Ohlstein.”Except of course when it doesn’t mean any such thing, like in the case of convergent evolution . . .
Eric made an excellent point. Why not convergence? Answer. Darwinists do not practice the scientific method but rather “methodological naturalism” . The default answer to any new discovery is Darwinian common descent. Is there any evidence here that a detailed pathway that links the gradual evolution of fruitflies and humans to a common ancestor? No, but that is not important, evolution is a fact.
To demonstrate that the great divisions of nature were really bridged by transitional forms in the past, it is not sufficient to find in the fossil record one or two types of organisms of doubtful affinity which might be placed on skeletal grounds in relatively intermediate position between other groups. ” To begin with, ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil. Supposing, for example, that all marsupials were extinct and the whole group was known only by skeletal remains would anyone guess that their reproductive biology was so utterly different from that of placental mammals and in some ways even more complex? (Michael Denton., “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, p177)
Darwinists are abhorrently close-minded and they don’t want to be confused by the facts. Everything is de facto UCA to a Darwinian. Read the rest of this entry »
Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Darwinism
Here is a letter from the ever eloquent and outspoken Professor of Biology John A. Davison to Revista De Biologia.
Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
Dear Editors,
The word theory has several definitions. To facilitate discussion I am going to define theory as follows. A theory sensu strictu is an hypothesis which, having been tested, has achieved a degree of support, thereby enabling it to make certain predictions. When this definition is applied to evolution some curious conclusions emerge.
I will present these conclusions first with respect to the two major hypotheses which have dominated evolutionary science for over a century. Read the rest of this entry »
criticism of neo-Darwinism : Let the truth be told
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Darwinism
An NAS Scientist Speaks out and urges Kansas to Teach the Controversy over Neo-Darwinism.
This guy’s got guts. Thank you, thank you, thank you Dr. Philip S. Skell. Thank you for saying what a lot of us have been thinking and saying for many years. Neo-Darwinism has not contributed anything of significance to the human condition. Evolution as change with respect to time in the microevolutionary sense indeed has contributed to science but not macroevolutionary neo-Darwinism. Dr. Philip S. Skell made so many good points here is an excerpt. Read the rest of this entry »
