Joined: June 2006
|Quote (sparc @ Sep. 14 2012,09:30)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 14 2012,07:31)|
|Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 14 2012,06:44)|
|Quote (keiths @ Sep. 13 2012,21:05)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2012,14:33)|
|Bwahahahah - Joe G not even on the radar!|
He's still trying to qualify:
|Why is it that artificial ribosomes do NOT function? If their functionality was the result of their physical and chemical components then artificial ribosomes should function just as the ribosomes found inside living organisms.|
Artificial ribosomes are lacking the programming required by compilers to function.
This is one of his current favorites. I thought functional artificial ribosomes had been synthesised, but it doesn't matter either way. It hardly points to a missing magic ingredient - and certainly not capital-D-Design as that ingredient - if you can't. You just haven't got one of the functional points in sequence space yet.
Depends on what you mean by artificial. [Curious how it always comes back to semantics with Jo-Jo.]
Anyway, if one means artificial as 'never before appearing on the Earth', then yes, it has been done. I'll have to look up the reference.
If one means that a human assembled an RNA from scratch, by placing the nucleotides in order one at a time, then no it hasn't been done. Why would that even be a requirement? Has Jo-Jo ever built a car from parts? And I mean parts here, no already assembled components like water pumps and alternators.
So, if Jo-Jo can't build a functioning car from parts, then the claim is that unless cars are built in a factory, they don't work?
This was in the list.
If Harold Faltermeyer had had sex with Kraftwerk.
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad