gabriel
2010-05-22 16:52:27 UTC
That they continue to lie about things so obvious is yet more
proof that fish to man evolution is not science but a religion of
rejecting the truth of God and indoctrinating others to their
beliefs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/05/20/scientists.organism.ft/
"Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living
organism "
Notice how they continue to mislead about what they really did.
Ask yourself why they are being dishonest and in the title saying
"Scientists create a living organism" and in the first line
"Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living
organism". A flat out lie.
They created DNA (which IS inanimate), and then transferring that
DNA into an already living organism. They did not in the least
turn inanimatge chemicals INTO a living organism. They did not
"create a living organism." More lies told by the evolutionists
and propagated by the media.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/22/news-to-note-05222010#one
1. CNN: Scientists Create a Living Organism & MSNBC: Its
Alive! Artificial DNA Controls Life
Dont let a headline like Its Alive fool you. Despite some
misleading news reports, life has not been made from scratch in a
laboratory.*
Scientists have assembled a bacterial chromosome (using
intelligence and a multi-million dollar lab) patterned after an
existing bacterial chromosome. But all the components already
existed. They were not created from scratch; instead, a bacterium
was simply rebuilt.
We most recently mentioned Craig Venters bid to create life
last August. At the time, scientists at the J. Craig Venter
Institute had successfully transferred the genome of one type of
bacteria into a yeast cell, modified it, and then transplanted
into another bacteriuma feat considered an important
preliminary to creating life.
In the current breakthrough, Venters team used ordinary
chemicals to construct a custom genome; though, they received
very significant help from preexisting organisms. More
specifically, the team studied and altered the existing
Mycoplasma mycoides genome, which enabled them to design and
build a semi-unique Mycoplasma mycoides genome (with added
watermarks) in the lab. They then commandeered an existing
microbe called Mycoplasma capricolum, removed its DNA, and
replaced it with the M. mycoides genome.
Regardless of some hyped press reports, this research
(brilliantly executed as it was) has nothing to do with evolution
in the molecules-to-man sense. Dr. Georgia Purdom, a molecular
geneticist on our Answers in Genesis (AiG) staff, notes that
there has merely been an alteration within a kind (at the family,
genus, or species level). Even the researchers have acknowledged
that this first synthetic cell is more a re-creation of existing
lifechanging one simple type of bacterium into another. While
Venter claimed, We have passed through a critical psychological
barrier. It has changed my own thinking, both scientifically and
philosophically, about life, and how it works, he was also quite
clear that [his team] didnt create life from scratch.
Unsurprisingly, the achievement has been linked to evolution,
both implicitly and explicitly. Venter is creaking open the most
profound door in humanitys history, potentially peeking into its
destiny, argued Oxford University ethicist Julian Savulescu.
This is a step towards . . . creation of living beings with
capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.
Savulescu is referring to one of Venters ultimate goals:
engineering organisms to conduct particular tasks, such as
producing algal biofuels.
Ultimately, declares Dr. Purdom, this kind of genetic engineering
is like taking the hard drive of computer #1 and putting it into
computer #2 that has had its own hard drive removed. So
effectively computer #2 becomes computer #1.
Dr. David Menton (PhD, biology), another researcher with AiG,
echoed Dr. Purdoms conclusions, adding that the research was a
form of genetic plagiarism. Just as a student might copy
someone elses work, in a sense, so too have these researchers,
declares Dr. Menton: they have taken Gods created handiwork and
refashioned it.
The components assembled in making this synthetic life were
created instantaneously 6,000 years ago by the Creator God
(Genesis 1). The work of brilliant scientists using millions of
dollars of resources still have not produced anything near a new
life form from scratch. Human intelligence and high-power
computers cant produce it; moreover, the mindless process of
evolutioneven given billions of yearswould not be any more
efficacious.
For technically inclined readers, here is Dr. Purdoms summary of
what the research group did:
* They took the known DNA sequence of the genome of the bacteria
Mycoplasma mycoides and had a machine synthesize copies of
portions of the sequence.
* The copied portions of the genome of M. mycoides were then
stitched together and transferred to the bacteria Mycoplasma
capricolum that had its own natural genome removed.
* The M. capricolum bacteria were able to use the M. mycoides
genome and reproduce, effectively making a synthetic version of
the bacteria called M. mycoides JCVI-syn 1.0.
* So to make the synthetic bacteria, intelligent scientists used
a bacterial sequence that already existed (they merely made a
slightly altered copy of it), along with bacteria that already
existed. This is excellent research, but not the creation of life
in the lab from scratch.
* An AP story was more circumspect in its reporting: The
inventors call it the worlds first synthetic cell, although this
initial step is more a re-creation of existing lifechanging one
simple type of bacterium into anotherthan a built-from-scratch
kind.
proof that fish to man evolution is not science but a religion of
rejecting the truth of God and indoctrinating others to their
beliefs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/05/20/scientists.organism.ft/
"Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living
organism "
Notice how they continue to mislead about what they really did.
Ask yourself why they are being dishonest and in the title saying
"Scientists create a living organism" and in the first line
"Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living
organism". A flat out lie.
They created DNA (which IS inanimate), and then transferring that
DNA into an already living organism. They did not in the least
turn inanimatge chemicals INTO a living organism. They did not
"create a living organism." More lies told by the evolutionists
and propagated by the media.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/22/news-to-note-05222010#one
1. CNN: Scientists Create a Living Organism & MSNBC: Its
Alive! Artificial DNA Controls Life
Dont let a headline like Its Alive fool you. Despite some
misleading news reports, life has not been made from scratch in a
laboratory.*
Scientists have assembled a bacterial chromosome (using
intelligence and a multi-million dollar lab) patterned after an
existing bacterial chromosome. But all the components already
existed. They were not created from scratch; instead, a bacterium
was simply rebuilt.
We most recently mentioned Craig Venters bid to create life
last August. At the time, scientists at the J. Craig Venter
Institute had successfully transferred the genome of one type of
bacteria into a yeast cell, modified it, and then transplanted
into another bacteriuma feat considered an important
preliminary to creating life.
In the current breakthrough, Venters team used ordinary
chemicals to construct a custom genome; though, they received
very significant help from preexisting organisms. More
specifically, the team studied and altered the existing
Mycoplasma mycoides genome, which enabled them to design and
build a semi-unique Mycoplasma mycoides genome (with added
watermarks) in the lab. They then commandeered an existing
microbe called Mycoplasma capricolum, removed its DNA, and
replaced it with the M. mycoides genome.
Regardless of some hyped press reports, this research
(brilliantly executed as it was) has nothing to do with evolution
in the molecules-to-man sense. Dr. Georgia Purdom, a molecular
geneticist on our Answers in Genesis (AiG) staff, notes that
there has merely been an alteration within a kind (at the family,
genus, or species level). Even the researchers have acknowledged
that this first synthetic cell is more a re-creation of existing
lifechanging one simple type of bacterium into another. While
Venter claimed, We have passed through a critical psychological
barrier. It has changed my own thinking, both scientifically and
philosophically, about life, and how it works, he was also quite
clear that [his team] didnt create life from scratch.
Unsurprisingly, the achievement has been linked to evolution,
both implicitly and explicitly. Venter is creaking open the most
profound door in humanitys history, potentially peeking into its
destiny, argued Oxford University ethicist Julian Savulescu.
This is a step towards . . . creation of living beings with
capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.
Savulescu is referring to one of Venters ultimate goals:
engineering organisms to conduct particular tasks, such as
producing algal biofuels.
Ultimately, declares Dr. Purdom, this kind of genetic engineering
is like taking the hard drive of computer #1 and putting it into
computer #2 that has had its own hard drive removed. So
effectively computer #2 becomes computer #1.
Dr. David Menton (PhD, biology), another researcher with AiG,
echoed Dr. Purdoms conclusions, adding that the research was a
form of genetic plagiarism. Just as a student might copy
someone elses work, in a sense, so too have these researchers,
declares Dr. Menton: they have taken Gods created handiwork and
refashioned it.
The components assembled in making this synthetic life were
created instantaneously 6,000 years ago by the Creator God
(Genesis 1). The work of brilliant scientists using millions of
dollars of resources still have not produced anything near a new
life form from scratch. Human intelligence and high-power
computers cant produce it; moreover, the mindless process of
evolutioneven given billions of yearswould not be any more
efficacious.
For technically inclined readers, here is Dr. Purdoms summary of
what the research group did:
* They took the known DNA sequence of the genome of the bacteria
Mycoplasma mycoides and had a machine synthesize copies of
portions of the sequence.
* The copied portions of the genome of M. mycoides were then
stitched together and transferred to the bacteria Mycoplasma
capricolum that had its own natural genome removed.
* The M. capricolum bacteria were able to use the M. mycoides
genome and reproduce, effectively making a synthetic version of
the bacteria called M. mycoides JCVI-syn 1.0.
* So to make the synthetic bacteria, intelligent scientists used
a bacterial sequence that already existed (they merely made a
slightly altered copy of it), along with bacteria that already
existed. This is excellent research, but not the creation of life
in the lab from scratch.
* An AP story was more circumspect in its reporting: The
inventors call it the worlds first synthetic cell, although this
initial step is more a re-creation of existing lifechanging one
simple type of bacterium into anotherthan a built-from-scratch
kind.