Jump to content


Photo

In The News: Xna (Synthetic Dna)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
9 replies to this topic

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:29 AM

http://news.national...s-life-science/

Synthetic DNA called XNA has been made, showing that it can be translated into DNA and potentially used in genetic therapy and genetic engineering. While this is exciting, it is also quite scarey given that we now have the ability to create a supervirus or two, and possibly to destroy natural genomes before we learn what NOT to do.

XNA can also functionally be copied and duplicated, passing on the information to it's "offspring" (although it does not appear to currently be used in any form of living organism). Scientists in the project have been able to stress HNA, which is one of six XNA polymers, and they say it has "evolved into different forms". They claim this is proof of evolution. Well, this is news to people arguing that it has already BEEN proven long before this discovery. They also state possible implications for abiogenesis research.

While it is unclear just how much they are overstating this discovery's implications for evolution, one thing is for certain; atheists will soon be adding this to their arsenal of apologetic arguments against God. Since this has only been seen in the laboratory, it is a process that is intelligently designed in the first place. Furthermore, there is no natural selection, and therefore no evolution if the genotype is not creating a phenotype, and testing its viability within a living organism. I guess time will sort our what is fact and what is pride and folly.

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:53 PM

More info from:

http://io9.com/59032...-the-real-thing

But scientists have been synthesizing XNA molecules for well over a decade. What makes the findings of Pinheiro and his colleagues so compelling isn't the XNA molecules themselves, it's what they've shown these alien molecules are capable of, namely: replication and evolution.
[...]
The researchers achieved a replication fidelity ranging from 95% in LNA to as high as 99.6% in CeNA — the kind of accuracy Pinheiro says is essential for evolution: "The potential for evolution is closely tied with how much information is being replicated and the error in that process," he explains. "The more error-prone… a genetic system is, the less information can be feasibly evolved."
[...]
Researchers call this guided evolution, and they've been doing it with natural DNA for some time. The fact that it can also be accomplished in the lab with synthetic DNA indicates that such a system could, in theory, work in a living organism.
[...]
Of course, nothing would call the indispensability of DNA- or RNA-based life into question more than the generation of an entirely synthetic, alternative life form, built from the ground up entirely by XNA. Such an organism would require XNA capable of driving its own replication, without the aid of any biological molecules. Pinheiro says that's still a ways off. "Even in its simplest setup... it would be very challenging to develop an XNA system within a cell." Such a system would require XNA capable of self-replication, and capable of undergoing evolution in a self-sustained manner.

That said, his team's work represents a major step in the right direction. As the molecular machinery designed to manipulate XNAs grows, so, too, will the capacity for synthetic genetic systems to stand and operate on their own.
(bold added)


Wow, human beings designing a synthetic basis for life from the ground up, copying what God has done, and they think they can prove that life evolved through natural processes. They even admit just how challenging this would be for an intelligent designer, say nothing about natural processes ...it's unreal.

I encourage you to research further on your own.

#3 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:17 PM

If you use this as an argument againt evo guys is not valid for them...........A group of scientist created somethiing like the ADN using the DNA as model......if even for them its imposible create something like ADN from scratch and the same group of people sells you the idea this was created for chance and randomness are you kidding me? and they created fairy tail histories like abiogenes mud+lava+some gas+sea water+lightning created the first organism.. lol
  • Remnant of The Abyss likes this

#4 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:37 AM

If you use this as an argument againt evo guys is not valid for them...........A group of scientist created somethiing like the ADN using the DNA as model......if even for them its imposible create something like ADN from scratch and the same group of people sells you the idea this was created for chance and randomness are you kidding me? and they created fairy tail histories like abiogenes mud+lava+some gas+sea water+lightning created the first organism.. lol


Rational thinking eludes the evolutionist. Posted Image

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:09 AM

You gotta love the slogan

"Evolves on its own"
I guess the writer "forgot" about the scientists who did the experiment..... oops!

Yet this screams to me

"First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds."
So all they did was replace the sugar component of DNA with something else..... How is this creating new DNA? Let alone being created on its own?

It would also be interesting to see these other forms this XNA has "evolved" into... and how it "evolved", if there was external help involved then it is not evolution in any sense of the word, and is merely blatant misdirection and propaganda.
  • supamk3speed likes this

#6 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:04 PM

It would also be interesting to see these other forms this XNA has "evolved" into... and how it "evolved", if there was external help involved then it is not evolution in any sense of the word, and is merely blatant misdirection and propaganda.


This is what they are calling "evolution":

The researchers put this claim to the test by showing that XNA strands made up of the HNA xeno-nucleotides like the one pictured here could evolve into specific sequences capable of binding target molecules (like an RNA molecule, or a protein) tightly and specifically.
Posted Image
Researchers call this guided evolution, and they've been doing it with natural DNA for some time. The fact that it can also be accomplished in the lab with synthetic DNA indicates that such a system could, in theory, work in a living organism.
http://io9.com/59032...-the-real-thing


It has nothing to do with living organisms, or the viability of such organisms based on phenotypic expression of any synthetic "genome" of DNA or XNA. It is based on the ability for synthetic sequences of XNA, or DNA to bind tightly to a target sequence of RNA or a protein. So they have theoretically proven evolution...once again :acigar:

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:46 PM

This is what they are calling "evolution":



It has nothing to do with living organisms, or the viability of such organisms based on phenotypic expression of any synthetic "genome" of DNA or XNA. It is based on the ability for synthetic sequences of XNA, or DNA to bind tightly to a target sequence of RNA or a protein. So they have theoretically proven evolution...once again :acigar:


I don't see how it "proves" evolution... Perhaps I should read the article itself ;)

#8 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:54 PM

I don't see how it "proves" evolution... Perhaps I should read the article itself ;)


I would encourage it. It isn't very long, and I found it entertaining (the implications for "proving evolution") as well as informative on current and future bio-tech, so not a total waste of time.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:34 PM

I would encourage it. It isn't very long, and I found it entertaining (the implications for "proving evolution") as well as informative on current and future bio-tech, so not a total waste of time.


Great to hear, may read it after uni today, thanks.

#10 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 22 May 2012 - 03:46 PM

Craig Ventor and his team synthesized the smallest genome known.
It was then substituted for the original dna.
And the cell saw no problem with the exchange.
The synthesized dna was watermarked to prevent its introduction into the world at large without being trackable.

What this showed is that it seems that dna is not actually related to life any more than is a man related to his tools. Instead the genome functions as a machine used by life as a systematic source of procedures, tools, and storage designed solely for the express purpose of fabricating body needs so as to allow expression.

If the full and necessary synthetic dna, as the last compliment required to support life, is put in a lifeless cell, nevertheless, no expression of the existence of life is obtained.
But, if put in live cell the dna allows life to use it for purposes of its expression.

Thus, life is manifest as something inorganic, because it is none of the individual organic parts of the whole organism, and is thus not discernible, and yet, when, nevertheless, actual and present, it is naturally and easily organically expressible.

Which explains the enigma of a whole body's diversities functioning to provide a singular expression defined as being under the dominance of one will.

And, in the same way we find that there exists no organ of, will.
Which is why we comprehend that we are someone and not merely something, for our will, which we know is ours, the body whole must obey if functional.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users