Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Creation of Life
Message-ID: <640@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 20:46:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.640
Posted: Thu May 30 20:46:22 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 00:06:58 EDT
References: <1124@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 73

>>[Keith Doyle]
>>I would agree on your last sentence.  However, science does not reject
>>new ideas and theories.  However, scientists expect new ideas to have
>>certain characteristics that make them worthy of adoption.  Science generally
>>does not support several conflicting theories at the same time.

>This is not true.  Comment has been made a number of times in this
>newsgroup (by evolutionists) about dissent and controversy making for
>interesting and healthy scientific endeavor.  One thinks, for instance,
>of the concept of multiple working hypotheses.  If they are not
>conflicting in some sense, there would appear to be little point in
>calling this a method of "multiple" hypotheses.  And if they are not
>each supported in some sense, they wouldn't be up for consideration.

What I was getting at, (and I could be wrong) is that science usually 
requires that new theories that profess to supplant previous theories,
must better explain the facts than previous theories, and via
Occams razor, should simplify or unify the explanation of these
facts in some manner.

>> Creation however, suggests little,
>> if anything that helps us move forward.  Creation for example, would
>> indicate that it is impossible to generate new forms of life via
>> experimenting with DNA.  Evolution makes no such claim, and may actually
>> be of service in decomposing more exactly what effects the DNA protiens
>> have on species etc.  
>
>I doubt that most, or even much, research done today is motivated
>either explicitly or implicitly by a desire to create life.  Nor is

Certainly some of what I have heard of DNA research is in creation of
new life forms that can 1) manufacture organic materials (usually for
medical use) or 2) metabolize certain materials such as the organism
that can break down oil slicks on water that is used for oil spill cleanups. 

>that motivation necessary in order to produce worthwhile research.  For
>example, the following concerns work done in connection with the
>elucidation of the structure of the TMV protein.  It is a virtual
>certainly that at least one of the authors harbors no desire to
>create life:
>
>  Duane T Gish, L K Ramachandram, W M Stanley, "Studies on the amino acid
>  sequence of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) protein.  I.  Fractionation of
>  products of tryptic hydrolysis by countercurrent distribution."
>  Archives of Biochemistry, 78(2), December 1958, 433-450.
>
>Yet this was useful research.

I'm not saying that the ONLY use of DNA research is investigation of new
life forms, just that evolution does not consider it impossible.

>By the way, what is a "DNA protein"?

I think that the subgroups of amino acids which are the building blocks of
DNA are considered 'proteins', though I'm sure I could stand some more detailed
enlightenment on this subject.  At work, my only ready reference is the
dictionary, (which is the main reason I am many times lacking in references,
they're not always at hand, a situation I hope to change once I get a modem
at home).  At any rate, one of the definitions of 'amino acid' is: a compound
of the form NH2CHRCOOH, found as essential components of the protein molecule.
And 'protein' is defined as: any of a group of complex nitrogenous organic
compounds of high molecular weight that contain amino acids as their basic
structural units and that occur in all living matter and are essential for
the growth and repair of animal tissue.

As you probably have surmised, I am not a biochemist.  I get the distinct
feeling that this definition of 'protein' in the dictionary leaves something
to be desired.  Actually, I'd love to hear of some good references on DNA,
DNA research, and the comparison of DNA of differing organisms.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd